Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock,Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

London County Council (Money) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Manchester Royal Infirmary Bill (changed from "Manchester Corporation Bill"),

As amended, considered: Ordered, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Essex County Council Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

EUROPEAN OFFICERS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India in what Indian States European officers are now being employed as Ministers; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that the States may be represented in the new Federal Assembly by their British Ministers?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): A list of the 19 States in which, so far as I am aware,
European officers are at present employed as Ministers will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The proposals in the Indian White Paper do not limit the discretion of the Rulers of States-members of the Federation in the appointment of their representatives in the Federal legislature.

Following is the list of States:


Alwar.
Kashmir.


Bahawalpur.
Khairpur.


Bastar.
Manipur.


Bharatpur.
Patiala.


Bhopal.
Budukkottai.


Bundi.
Rewa.


Cochin.
Sirohi.


Cooch Behar.
Tonk.


Hyderabad.
Travancore.


Junagadh.

FEDERATED MALAY STATES (REPATRIATED INDIANS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India the number of Indians who have been repatriated from tine Federated Malay States in each of the past five years; and whether the Government of India has under consideration a revision of their emigration policy?

Mr. BUTLER: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. AS regards the latter part of the question, I have no information. Owing to the depression in the rubber industry, emigration to Malaya from India has for the present practically ceased.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to imply that voluntary emigration has practically ceased?

Mr. BUTLER: I understand that emigration to Malay from India has at the present moment practically ceased.

Following are the figures:

Indian Repatriates from the Federated Malay States for the years, 1927 to 1931. (Figures for the year 1932 are not yet available.)


Indian Repatriates from the Federated Malay States for the years, 1927 to 1931. (Figures for the year 1932 are not yet available.)


Year

Adults.
Minors.
Infants.
Total.


1931
…
26,583
7,924
3,274
37,781


1930
…
37,302
11,111
4,090
52,503


1929
…
2,920
917
—
3,837


1928
…
7,279
2,345
—
9,624


1927
…
(Details not available)


5,032

STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. TOM SMITH: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India when the present protection for the Indian steel industry expires; and what steps the government of India propose to take with a view to holding a statutory inquiry into the industry?

Mr. BUTLER: The protective duties at present in force expire on the 31st March, 1934. The Government of India hope that the inquiry prescribed by the Steel Industry Protection Act will be begun before the end of this year.

MAIL SERVICES (BURMA).

Mr. T. SMITH: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India what action the Government of India propose to take to wards the proposals now under consideration by the Government of Burma to curtail existing mail sevices and to reduce the speed of mail boats plying between Burma and Indian ports?

Mr. BUTLER: I have no information but will inquire.

PRISONERS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the case of 40 political prisoners who are on hunger strike in the Andamans; if so, will he state how many deaths have occurred and the date of each death; and will he state what reason prompted the authorities to send political prisoners to that area?

Mr. BUTLER: Reports have been received from the Government of India. Three deaths occurred, on the 18th, the 26th and about the 28th of May. In two cases death is stated to have been caused by pneumonia and not to have been due to hunger-striking. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend explained the reason for the transfer of these terrorist convicts in his reply to the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on 11th July, 1932.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not very unusual to send political prisoners to the Andamans; and, in view of the fact that no less than three out of 40 of these prisoners, all of whom are on hunger
strike as a result of being sent there, have died, does he not think that the Government of India ought to remove the prisoners?

Mr. BUTLER: I cannot agree that the Government of India should remove the prisoners in view of the previous answer of my right hon. Friend. In regard to the latter part of the question, the hunger strike was started with a view to breaking prison discipline, and the authorities were bound to resist it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that the hunger strike actually started because prisoners were sent to the Andamans, and, since no less than three lives have been lost, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the Government of India ought to reconsider this question?

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Is it not a fact that British troops are quartered at the Andamans and that there have been no cases of hunger strike among them?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the last statement, or whether the Government of India would send
Europeans to the Andamans at all?

Major MILNER: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the telegram sent by a number of prominent Indians, who are not associated with the Indian Congress, emphasising the view that it is time that political prisoners detained without trial, or convicted of offences not involving violence, should be released and stressing the value of Congress participation in the shaping of the Indian constitution; and whether he proposes to accede to their representations?

Mr. BUTLER: My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the telegram, but he finds nothing in it which justifies him in adding to what he said in this House on the 13th February.

Major MILNER: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is a golden opportunity for the Government in view of the suspension of civil disobedience?

Mr. BUTLER: I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the statement I have made, and to which I must refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Do we understand from the reply that in no conceivable circumstances will the Government change their minds?

Mr. BUTLER: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which was given, and which, as he will see, was circulated.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM (PRINCRS).

Mr. DONNER: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India the number and names out of the 500 and more Princes of India who have themselves publicly declared in favour of federation as at present proposed in the White Paper?

Mr. BUTLER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the speeches at the First and Second Round Table Conferences of the Rulers who attended these and to the resolutions of the Chamber of Princes in the years 1931 to 1933 in favour of cooperation in the elaboration of a Federal scheme. Copies of the Debates in which these resolutions were unanimously adopted have been placed in the Library.

Mr. DONNER: Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that even those Princes who agreed to federate will be willing to do so without being given more substantial guarantees than those indicated in the White Paper?

Mr. BUTLER: It has always been left for the Princes to decide upon this important matter themselves.

Sir A. KNOX: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea that any Princes have definitely decided to come in yet? Can he make any estimate?

Mr. BUTLER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to certain statements in the answer to the question.

Sir A. KNOX: Has it not changed several times since?

Mr. MOLSON: Is it not desirable to wait until the report of the Joint Select Committee has been presented?

Mr. JOHN: 7 and 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether he is aware that one of the Meerut prisoners desires to write a book while incarcerated, and that he has been supplied with one small note book for the purpose; and whether he will be placed in Class A and given the ordinary amenities of political prisoners;
(2) seeing that non-violent political prisoners are entitled to be placed in Class A and that the judge and prosecuting counsel agreed that none of the accused had been guilty of illegal acts, on what grounds the Meerut prisoners are denied the rights to which their status as political prisoners entitles them?

Mr. BUTLER: I have no information regarding the incident referred to in question number 7. I cannot accept as accurate the statements on which question number 8 is based. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the communique issued in 1930 by the Government of India regarding the general principles for classifying prisoners, from which he will see that there is no grade of political prisoners as such. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that in classifying these prisoners as "B" the local government have taken all relevant factors into consideration.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both the prosecuting counsel and the judge declared that not one of these 20 odd persons had committed any illegal acts, and, in these circumstances, and particularly in view of the pending appeal, does he not think that they may be placed in Class A?

Mr. BUTLER: My right hon. Friend is satisfied in leaving this matter to the discretion of the local government.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As there are among these prisoners some whose case is still sub judice,does not the Secretary of State think that he ought to change his mind and invite the Indian Government to put these prisoners in Class A pending the result of their appeal?

Mr. BUTLER: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that these prisoners have the desired facility, and I would remind the hon. Member that they have already been transferred from Class C to Class B, at the instance of the Indian Government?

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Member convey to the Secretary of State the fact that one of the Meerut prisoners is desirous of using the time in prison for writing a book? Surely there is no one in this House who would object to a political prisoner having such facilities? Does the hon. Member think it an unreasonable request?

Mr. BUTLER: I understand that my right hon. Friend is satisfied with the facilities afforded these prisoners, but I will certainly convey the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend.

SPAIN (BRITISH SUBJECT'S FINE).

Mr. RANKIN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fine of £2,200 imposed upon the master of the British steamer "Datchet" for an alleged technical infringement of the Spanish Customs regulations; and whether he proposes to protest to the Spanish Government against the excessive degree of this penalty?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Marģesson): My right hon. Friend regrets very much that he is unable to be present, owing to other duties, and has asked me to reply. Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend's attention was called to this case on the 5th April. His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid was authorised to make official representations to the Spanish Government in support of the further appeal which the owners, at the suggestion of their legal advisers, proposed to submit to the competent authorities. No information is yet available as to the outcome of this appeal.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend assure the House that every avenue will be explored in order to obtain a satisfactory conclusion?

Captain MARGESSON: All avenues are always explored.

DISARMAMENT (DRAFT CONVEN TION).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now reconsider the decision to retain in the draft disarmament convention the reservation respecting police bombing in certain outlying districts?

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 32.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government will, in view of the fact that the continued free use of aircraft is in existing
circumstances the sole economical means available of discharging our treaty obligations in certain territories, maintain their refusal to assent to any proposals which may be made at Geneva for rendering impossible the fulfilment of these obligations without reversion to older forms of ground warfare involving heavier casualties?

Captain MARGESSON: My right hon. Friend can only refer my hon. Friends to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to similar questions on the 31st May last and also to the reply which he gave to the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, on the 30th May. The present position of this question was further explained to the House by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in the Debate on the 13th June last and my right hon. Friend can add nothing to these statements.

Mr. ADAMS: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his exhaustive answer, may I ask him two questions? First, does that reservation represent the opinion of the Foreign Secretary, and, in the second place, will he ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that this reservation, however immediately convenient it may be to us, is widely viewed throughout the country not only with repugnance but also with great apprehension?

Captain MARGESSON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for his opinion?

Wing-Commander JAMES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the expression "police bombing," as applied to territories which we neither administer nor police, is not a misnomer, and would not the expression "preventive bombing" be more applicable to this method of preserving the peace in certain areas?

Captain MARGESSON: I will see that the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member is conveyed to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. BERNAYS: In view of the decision announced over the week-end of Germany to build police aeroplanes, is it not all the more important that Great Britain should take action on the lines suggested at Geneva?

EASTERN GALICIA.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are still convinced of the desirability of an autonomous regime in the territory known as Eastern Galicia; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of consulting with the other signatories to the decision of the Conference of Ambassadors at Paris on 15th March, 1923, which assigned Eastern Galicia to the Polish Government subject to the granting of autonomy, as to whether representations should be made to the Polish Government or what action should be taken to ensure that the decision of the Conference of Ambassadors is carried out?

Captain MARGESSON: The answer to the first part of the question is that the views of His Majesty's Government on the desirability of an autonomous regime in Eastern Galicia remain unchanged. His Majesty's Government are not, however, convinced of the expediency of raising the question with the Polish Government at this juncture, nor have they received any intimation from their cosignatories that the latter for their part contemplate such a course.

Mr. KNIGHT: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend indicate to our mutual right hon. Friend that, on the view that the resolution of the Ambassadors' Conference is effective, it is in the interests of peace that His Majesty's Government should invite the assenting Powers to that resolution to reconsider this matter?

Captain MARGESSON: The latter part of my answer says that they have not received any intimation showing that it is desired.

Mr. KNIGHT: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to his right hon. Friend the suggestion that an intimation of this sort as to the views of His Majesty's Government would have great influence on the assenting Powers?

Captain MARGESSON: Yes, Sir, I certainly will do so.

OVERSEAS TRADE (RETURNS).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can arrange to publish in the
Board of Trade Journal in the next quarterly review of the volume and value of our overseas trade an analysis separating the volume and value of our trade with Empire countries from that with foreign countries?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I regret that this analysis is not practicable owing to the very considerable expenditure of time and labour which would be involved in the compilation of the necessary statistics and in the subsequent calculations.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: While I realise the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers, does he not think it possible for rather fuller information to be given, for example, in the monthly returns?

Mr. BROWN: I understand that that matter is now under consideration.

COAL INDUSTRY (EXPLOSIONS).

Mr. T. SMITH: 19.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many explosions occurred in coal mines during 1930, 1931 and 1932, and the number of lives lost as a result of these explosions?

Mr. E. BROWN: During the year 1930, there were 18 colliery explosions involving loss of life, the total number of deaths being 70. The corresponding figures for 1931 were 12 explosions and 107 deaths, and for 1932, 13 explosions and 69 deaths.

Mr. SMITH: How many public inquiries were held into the causes of these explosions; and how many prosecutions were instituted as a result?

Mr. BROWN: I could not say without notice, but, if the hon. Member puts down a question, I will try to give him the information.

EDUCATION (CLINIC, LEYTON).

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what further provision is to be made for the borough of Leyton, Essex, by way of clinics as to the sight, hearing, throat and limb care of the school children of that borough; and will he consider dealing with the younger children in this borough upon the lines of the Margaret Macmillan type of school?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): With regard to the first part of the question, plans for a new clinic to deal with minor ailments, refraction and dental work, were approved by the Board of Education in July, 1932. The clinic is being built and is expected to be ready this year. As regards the second part of the question, my Noble Friend is unable in present financial circumstances to entertain proposals for new nursery schools.

Sir W. SUGDEN: With regard to the first part of the question, is the hon. Gentleman sure that the present plan of the proposed building will be sufficient to meet existing needs, and, in respect of the Margaret Macmillan type of school, will he represent to his Noble Friend the vital need which exists in this matter?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I understand that there are already two other clinics in Leyton. My Noble Friend is well aware of the situation in Leyton.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENT ACT (CHARITY ALLOCATIONS).

Mr. REMER: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is prepared to issue a circular to the local authorities concerned as to the desirability of allocating some proportion of the charity allocations under the Sunday Entertainments Act to the Cinematograph Trade Benevolent Fund, as is done by the London County Council and two other county boroughs?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): No, Sir. I cannot undertake to make any suggestion to local authorities as to the manner in which they should exercise the discretion vested in them by Parliament in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS, LONDON.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the recent prosecution of a motorist attempting to cross a road when the green light was changing to amber, he will state, for public information, what instructions are given to the police on the subject in the Metropolitan Police area?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think my hon. Friend must refer to a case heard at Bow Street Police Court on the 7th instant in which a driver was prosecuted for proceeding against a red signal and the defence was that the amber light was showing. The purpose of the amber light with the red is to indicate the impending change from red to green; vehicles can get ready to start but must on no account move until the green appears. The amber light shown alone after the green means "stop," and the duty of an approaching driver is to stop short of the signal when the amber light appears unless his stoppage would be so sudden as to endanger his own vehicle or the traffic behind him.

Sir G. FOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us as to the legal position of a pedestrian who attempts to cross the road when the light changes from green to amber?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think if he chooses to cross in those circumstances he does so at his own risk.

MOTOR VEHICLES (EXHAUST FUMES).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the growing menace to public health, particularly in the case of young children in large cities and the drivers, caused by the exhaust fumes of motor vehicles, any measures are being taken to abate this nuisance?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I am not aware of any evidence that exhaust fumes from motor vehicles in the open air constitute any danger to the public health, though in a confined space they can, of course, be injurious.

Mr. DAVIES: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman any evidence as to the effect of these fumes on the drivers of the vehicles?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not think that drivers suffer any evil effects in the open air.

POLICE FORCES (AMALGAMATION).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 23.
asked the Home Secretary if he can now make any further statement as to what action, if any, he proposes to take with
regard to the co-ordination and reduction in numbers of the provincial police forces?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am unable at this stage to add anything to the terms of the reply returned on the 5th May last to the question on this subject put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson).

Captain MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps with this object in view; and, in view of the changes in the organisation of the Metropolitan Police Force, is there not a favourable opportunity of doing so at present?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Captain MACDONALD: There is so much noise on this bench that I cannot make myself heard.

GERMAN LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. REMER: 24.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the proposed default of the German Government on its contracted obligations, he will take steps to forbid inter-bourse transactions between the United Kingdom and Germany in German securities until full in- terest and sinking fund payments are made on the obligations of the German State municipal and public authorities conformedly with the contracts issued to the British public?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): His Majesty's Government have no power to take the steps suggested.

SILVER (EXCHANGE VALUE).

Sir W. SUGDEN: 25.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the difficult position of the British cotton spinning and weaving trades and of the yarn trade, arising in part by reason of the lack of stabilisation in the price of silver; and what steps the Government are taking to deal with this matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to
my hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Chorlton) on Wednesday last.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind in regard to this matter the need for an Order-in-Council taking over the reserves of silver in Delhi, and the application of such a proposal to the needs of this vital industry?

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Sir W. SUGDEN: 28.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government are now in a position to consider the claim for the establishment of ex-service P-class and temporary paper keepers, record keepers, and messengers who have already served for a long period; and whether the Government are prepared to give them establishment on a basis comparable to that prescribed for P-class and temporary ex-service clerks?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As regards the first part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 2nd March, 1933, to the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson). The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that it is essential that this matter should be given immediate attention as very great hardship obtains as a result of the lethargy with which it has been dealt with up to the present?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This matter has had very prolonged attention and was the subject of a report by a Royal Commission and nothing that we are doing is inconsistent with the recommendations of that Commission.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Having regard to the proverbial lethargy of Royal Commissions, will the hon. Gentleman direct his own agile mind to the consideration of this matter?

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, MARGATE.

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the chief engineer of the London and Home Counties Joint Elec-
tricity Authority has been retained by the Margate Corporation to advise them on the question of the charges made by the Isle of Thanet Electric Supply Company, Limited, for electricity supplied in the borough; and whether it is with his sanction that a highly-paid official of a joint electricity authority, whose expenses are defrayed in part by the authorised undertakers within the district of the joint authority, is to act in a professional capacity for other bodies in competition with the members of the Association of Consulting Engineers, who have to provide their own offices and staff?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority is a statutory body and has a right to appoint its own officers and to decide on the terms and conditions of such appointments. No sanction on my hon. Friend's part is required.

Sir E. CAMPBELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly look into the question once again and consider whether something should not be done in the matter, as this seems to be a gross injustice, and not in the interest of the public?

Lieut.-Golonel HEADLAM: I am afraid it is no affair of my hon. Friend's but I appreciate the point of view put forward by the hon. Member.

Captain BALFOUR: Is the Minister aware that the Margate corporation knows its own business best as regards its action in this matter?

WAR DEBTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 31.
asked the Prime Minister if he will afford an opportunity for discussion by this House of the propriety of further payments of War Debts being made by, without a corresponding payment of debts due to, Great Britain?

Captain MARGESSON: No question of further payments in respect of the British War Debt will arise until next December. It would be premature at present to say anything as regards affording an opportunity for further discussion of the matter by this House.

Mr. LAMBERT: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the Members of this House have had no opportunity
of discussing this matter; and, while the American Congress has the final word, may not the Members of the House of Commons express their opinion as well?

Captain MARGESSON: The statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night, I think, received the unanimous approval of the House.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that then we simply had to endorse the bargain made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we had no opportunity of expressing any opinion on the larger question of further payments?

Captain MARGESSON: I can only say at the moment that the Government consider that it would be premature in the circumstances.

Mr. MAXTON: Does that mean that the six months which the Chancellor of the Exchequer bargained for and obtained is to be allowed to pass before we begin to consider the problem of further instalments?

Captain MARGESSON: No, Sir; quite the contrary.

POST OFFICE (EASTERN CABLEGRAMS).

Mr. HALES: 14.
asked the Postmaster General whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to English shippers and mercantile firms owing to the abolition of the week-end cables to India and the East; and if he will consider the possibility of reducing the rate of daily letter telegrams, the cost of which is now nearly double the rates previously charged before the recent advances were made?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The International Telegraph Conference held at Madrid last autumn approved the application, to letter-telegram services with countries ouside Europe, of a uniform rate of one-third of the full rate, subject to a minimum charge as for 25 words. This measure was adopted as a result of representations made to the Conference by the telegraph companies of the world. Unfortunately it involves the withdrawal of the specially low rates for week-end letter-telegrams and an increase in the rates for daily letter-telegrams; but the conference decided that, under present
conditions, the maintenance of these low rates could not be justified. I regret that I can see no prospect of a reduction of the new letter-telegram rates in the near future.

Mr. HALES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great falling off in the number of week-end cables to India in consequence of this doubling of the rates, and can he not find some way of getting over it as far as England is concerned?

Sir K. WOOD: The rates are not double; the increase is from one-quarter to one-third of the rate. I regret the decision; the British delegation took a certain course at the International Conference, and this is the decision of the Conference.

Mr. HALES: Is not the rate raised from a minimum of 5s. to a minimum of 10s. 5d. per 25 words?

Sir K. WOOD: I think that the figures I have given are correct, but I will gladly accept what the hon. Member says, as he is an authority on these matters.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: In the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule being carried, may I ask the

Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury how far it is proposed to go to-night.

Captain MARGESSON: The suspension of the Eleven O'Clock Rule is being moved in order to obtain the first three Orders on the Paper.

Mr. LANSBURY: With regard to the third Order—Supply, Report—we do not intend to contest it, but there are a lot of Amendments to the second Order, Local Government and other Officers' Superannuation (Temporary Provisions) Bill, and, in the event of it not being reached before Eleven o'clock does the Parliamentary Secretary propose to go on with it?

Captain MARGESSON: No, Sir. I hope that reasonable progress will be made with the first Order and that we shall dispose of it in ample time to allow the second Order to be disposed of without keeping the House unduly late. If I am over-optimistic, the House can be sure that it is not the intention of the Government to ask the House to sit late to-night.

Motion, made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)"—[Captain Mar-gesson.]

The House divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 27.

Division No. 240.]
AYES.
[3.15 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Goff, Sir Park


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Agnew, Lleut.-Com. P. G.
Clarke, Frank
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Allan, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. 8.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)


Anstmther-Gray, W. J.
Cooke, Douglas
Grigg, Sir Edward


Aske, Sir Robert William
Copeland, Ida
Grlmston, R. V.


Astbury, Lleut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hales, Harold K.


Balnlel, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Hanley, Dennis A.


Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Dovles, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Harris, Sir Percy


Bernays, Robert
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Headlam, Lieut -Col. Cuthbert M.


Blindeil, James
Donner, P. W.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Borodale, Viscount
Doran, Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Boulton, W. W.
Drewe, Cedric
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Dunglass, Lord
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Boyce, H. Leslie
Elmley, viscount
Horsbrugh, Florence


Broadbent, Colonel John
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hudson, Capt. A. u. M. (Hackney,N.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Hurd, Sir Percy


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Faile Sir Bertram G.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Roml'd)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H


Burnett, John George
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Fox, Sir Gifford
Kerr, J. Campbell


Butler, Richard Austen
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Knight, Holford


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gamzoni, Sir John
Lambert. Rt. Hon. George


Carver, Major William H.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lelghton, Major B. E. P.


Cautley, Sir Henry S-
Glucksteln, Louis Halle
Levy, Thomas


Lewis, Oswald
Munro, Patrick
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Llewellyn-Jones. Frederick
Nunn, William
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Patrick, Colin M.
Strauss, Edward A.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Peake, Captain Osbert
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Pethtrlck, M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Tate Mavis Constanee


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Parfick)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Mac Donald, Malcolm (Baseetlaw)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (1. of W.)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


McEwen, Captain J. H. F
Rankin, Robert
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


McKie, John Hamilton
Rathbone, Eleanor
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Rea, Waiter Russell
Weymouth, Viscount


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Maltland, Adam
Remer, John R.
Williams, Chariot (Devon, Torquay)


Makins Brigadier-General Ernest
Ron, Ronald D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertfd)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Merrlman, Sir F. Boyd
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Womersley, Walter James


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Mitchell, Harold p.(Br'trd & Chlsw'k)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Worthlngton, Dr. John V.


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)



Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Somervills, Annesley A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moreing, Adrian C.
Southby, Commander Archibald R.J.
Sir Frederick Thornton and Sir George Penny.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wellhead, Richard C.


Cove, William G.
Lanebury, Rt. Hon. Geerge
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dagger, George
Logan, David Gilbert



Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Edwards, Charles
McGovern, John
Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. Tinker.

WORKSOP CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment I shall take is that in the name of the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), to leave out Clause 3.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that there are two new Clauses on the Paper. I take it. for granted, from the statement that you have just made, that you do not intend to call those Clauses. Whatever may be the merit of the second new Clause—Constitution and duty of Advisory Committee—I would ask whether it is possible for us to know why the first new Clause—Secretary of State to make regulations for promotion within the force—is. not being called? You will notice the title of the Clause. As a matter of fact, a goodly number of the points within the ambit of the Bill deal with promotion within the force, and it would help us considerably if you would say why particularly that Clause is not being called.

Mr. SPEAKER: I should be getting into a bad habit if I always gave reasons why I did not select Amendments. Both the suggested new Clauses are outside the scope of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Amendment as to constitution of Police Federation.)

3.23 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
If this Clause is passed it will undoubtedly aim a serious blow at the usefulness of the Police Federation. In my opinion it is the intention of the Government to sabotage everything of a democratic character in the control of the Metropolitan Police Force. In the Memorandum to the Bill as introduced on Second Reading, it is stated that certain officers in the Police Force shall cease to be members of the Police Federation. These officers have been and are members of the federation to-day. Some of them may have been active members in the federation and may have done good work. I should have thought that if there was any need for a steadying influence in the
federation these would be the men who would be likely to have that steadying influence. If the Clause is passed they will not be able in future, with all their experience, to take any further part in the work of the federation. The Memorandum also states that constables who go to the Police College shall never be members of the Police Federation. I do not understand at all why that should be. The proposal seems to me to be to set up a separate class in the Metropolitan Police Force. I cannot understand the Government taking such a course. I cannot imagine that it will be for the efficiency of the force that young men who have perhaps a little more education and have had better opportunities than have been given to others and will have to do the same duties as other men in the Police Force, should not be allowed to join and work with their colleagues in the federation. It seems to me as though the Government are establishing a body of snobs within the force, in giving this exemption to the young men who are to be brought into the force in the near future.
One thing that has surprised some of us is why there should be this attack on the Police Federation. The federation is not a trade union. I wish it were. It was set up as a result of the work of a remarkable committee which issued a report that was accepted by Parliament. I refer to the Desborough Committee. For many years the federation has worked admirably. It has been praised by various Home Secretaries and chiefs of police for its efforts and for its helpfulness in improving the efficiency of the force. The results of its deliberations are published. Any Member of the House can see in the "Police Review" or in the "Police Chronicle" the federation's reports and the resolutions that are passed. I understand that these documents are supplied to the Home Secretary and to the Commissioner of Police at Scotland Yard. I should have thought that the experience of the men who are taking part in the work of the federation, and the result of their deliberations, would have been a great help to the Commissioner, who has not had the experience of police work possessed by many of the men who take part in the work of the federation. It seems that the members of the federation are to be re-
stricted and hampered in their work in future.
The only reasons we have had given for the Government's action were two cases that were mentioned by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Second Reading of the Bill. He quibbled a good deal before he gave those cases. He wriggled and did not seem to wish to give the cases at all. In the end he gave them. I have never heard a more flimsy case than that given by the Under-Secretary on that occasion. Let me give the two cases quoted by the Under-Secretary. The first one was his objection to the Police Federation, because they had expressed opinions regarding the representation of the police on some organisation to which they contributed largely. I always thought that those who paid the piper might call the tune, or have some say in choosing the tune. In this case, the members of the Metropolitan Police Force contribute large sums and they considered that they were entitled to more representation. I should not have thought that was a reason for this attack on the Police Federation. The second point was that they had appealed to the Home Secretary that the second cut in their wages should not be implemented. I suppose policemen are human, like most of us, and they would not welcome reductions in their wages. They said that the cut Would affect their standards of living. Men who are in receipt of wages of less than £4 a week think that if they are to have a reduction of 8s. 6d. a week there is good argument in saying that it will reduce their standard of living. Most men who are in receipt of a stationary wage, or their wives, have it measured out to a large extent every week, and if they are taking steps to educate their family, as many policemen do, they would not have much margin over what was their wage before the cuts came about. Yet the passing of a resolution urging the Home Secretary that the second cut should not be imposed upon them, was the only other cause given by the Under-Secretary for this attack on the Police Federation, thereby creating disquietude in the federation. We do not believe that this Clause if passed into law will create more harmony in the Police Force. We are sure that it is damaging the confidence of the men and that it will not
make for efficiency in the force in the future.

3.34 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: We discussed this matter in committee, and I must confess that I thought the Home Secretary put up a very weak case in defence of this new policy. It is a new policy of the Government. It is a request that the House of Commons should change a policy to which it deliberately came. The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) is right in saying that the Police Federation is not a trade union. The federation was a counterblast to having a trade union in the force. It arose largely out of the discontent in the service that culminated in the police strike. So great was the discontent and unrest that a Royal Commission was set up, under the distinguished chairmanship of Lord Desborough, to inquire into the whole problem of discipline within the service and they deliberately advised the creation of the federation. The federation, rightly or wrongly, is Parliament's own creation. It is machinery to meet the demand that sections of the force should belong to a trade union. It is not entirely a novelty. There are similar organisations in local government. Under the London County Council they have a staff organisation which, on the whole, in the light of experience, has proved most efficient in the prevention of irritation and disputes, and is composed of those members of the staff who desire to belong to it.
This Clause arises out of the memorandum proposing certain changes in organisation, which points out that:
Under the Police Act, 1919, all officers below the rank of Superintendent are automatically members of the federation, and, in every force, there is a branch board for inspectors, as well as one for Serjeants and one for constables.
Parliament deliberately decided that members of the police force should join the federation in order to prevent irritation, trouble and friction, but the memorandum goes on to say:
It is neither necessary nor consistent with the position which the college-trained officers are intended to occupy in the force that they should form part of an organisation set up because the normal channels of ventilating grievances and making representations were not regarded as adequate.
I think that is an unfortunate way of starting the new college. I am in favour of the college; I think it is necessary to provide us with an efficient and up-to-date police force. Composed of capable and qualified officers, but you are going to give the unfortunate impression that this staff college is quite apart and distinct from the police force as a whole. You will discredit it from the beginning with the rank and file of the force. From the point of view of smooth working it is more in accordance with common sense that the most able, competent and efficient officers should be in the federation as a steadying influence. If you are going to leave out the senior ranks you are saying to the rank and file: "You are something apart from your officers." That is contrary to the spirit of conservatism which has always said, and rightly, that there are not these sectional divisions. It is a very unfortunate departure and I suggest that if there is going to be exclusion let it be confined to the very top ranks. Do not let it be, as this Clause proposes, that the senior officers above the rank of sergeant are left out. You will handicap this new and good experiment for improving the efficiency of the officers and providing them with adequate training, by taking them completely out of this organisation, which is not a trade union organisation, set up by Parliament. You will suggest that the interests of one section are different from the interests of another That is the very last thing Parliament wants to do.
It is our proud boast that the Metropolitan Police Force is the finest force in the world. People come from all parts of Europe, America and the world to study this highly efficient and disciplined force, which is not a military but a civilian force. I am afraid you will create a different atmosphere and that there will be in the police now two separate sections, one in the federation, the ordinary man, one not in the federation, the extraordinary man. That is a most unfortunate thing. I suppose it is too much to ask the Home Secretary to take out the whole Clause, but at any rate I hope he will give us some assurance that it will be modified in another place. I should like to have modified it here, but it is very difficult to find words which will pass the Chair and which will adequately modify the Clause so as to
make satisfactory provision for the whole of the Police Force to be members of the federation set up by the House of Commons.

3.41 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I support the deletion of this Clause. When we considered this matter upstairs there was a general expression of opinion as to the lack of wisdom in attempting to divide one set of officers from the other. I find that not only in the Metropolitan Police but in the county and borough constabularies in the country there is a tremendous feeling of misgiving among all sections of the police, as well as among the general public, regarding this Bill. The generally expressed opinion seems to be, What is behind all this? There is a feeling that, innocent as the Bill may appear to be on the surface, and in spite of the very mild-mannered way in which the Home Secretary put the case for the Bill, in some way or other an attempt is being made to alter the whole constitution of the Police Force. The ordinary man in the street is hardly able to realise, in spite of the excellent speeches of the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State, why there is any necessity for the Bill at all. He can understand the necessity for a Bill to institute a police college, and he can understand the arguments that may be used to make the force more efficient and more educated, but the ordinary man realises that in this Clause 3 you are making provision for a difierent set of police officers, brought in differently and given a certain type of training.
One feels that the influence of the example of the training of the Air Force hangs over this Bill. One feels that in a very great measure a pattern seems to have been taken from the formation and recruiting of the Air Force and applied to the Police Force, and in spite of all the arguments that have been put up, the vast majority of people are still unable to understand why, in a force which has commended itself to the extent that people from all parts of the world come to London to study it, there should be this change. The ordinary members of the public, who, after all, have a very deep affection on the whole for the members of the force, are still unable to understand why this thing should be brought about. I know that the Home Secretary does not like us to state what
I am going to state, but I shall state definitely what thousands of people are already thinking, that this is a definite and real attempt to militarise the Police Force. The Home Secretary will probably deny, as he has denied all along, that that is the aim and object, but in view of the institution of an outside body of men, not trained in the ordinary way, given this special kind of education, brought in over the heads of people who have served years and years, I suggest that there is a definitely different policy, and that its only effect in the long run is that the Police Force may be able to be used in some other way than that of a civil force.
However much this may be denied, one has to look ahead and to visualise, if one can, what will be the difference in the Police Force after this Bill is passed and these regulations are put into force. The difference is that you will have a separate class of head officials, apart from their fellows, who are not to be members of the Police Federation. The federation was definitely formed to supply what was felt, I think, by all parties in the House and in the country to be a very definite want, for the purpose of finding a vehicle whereby complaints and grievances of the members of the Police Force could be dealt with in a proper and well-regulated way. Are we to take it that this federation, having served its purpose, is now to be quietly smothered because there has been a feeling in high quarters that it is not altogether the proper thing to have what we may call a shop union in existence in the Police Force? I suggest that this is an attempt to smother the Police Federation, and I know that it may be denied that there is any such intention, but there is no getting past the fact that obviously the federation, by this Bill, is to be definitely discouraged. It is told quietly that it is not to do certain things, that it is not to have so many meetings, that it is not to pass so many recommendations. It is simply to be, if it does meet at all, one of those bodies that might possibly discuss the question of officers' uniforms and whether there should be certain lighter clothes in the summer time than in the winter time. In other words, so far as effectiveness is concerned, it appears not only to me, but to the police up and down the country,
that the federation itself is definitely to come to an end.
It would be a tremendous mistake, in my view, if it were to be assumed that this Bill in the long run is to apply only to the Metropolitan Police. There is a very real fear in the hearts of those in the country that the same kind of thing, in some indirect way, may be attempted in the big boroughs and towns and in the county constabularies, and the general feeling is that this is definitely a step in the wrong direction. Upstairs I pointed out to the Home Secretary that, in my experience as the general secretary of a trade union, I had found that for practical purposes it was always wise to get everyone engaged in a particular industry, from the top to the bottom, to meet together in one organisation to thrash things out and to present their various points of view. The Government are making a fundamental mistake. They say on the one hand that they will leave in the federation people who will obviously have a different point of view from that of the chief officials, and yet they are unwilling to allow the chief officials to go to federation meetings and put to the other ranks of the force the head office and administration point of view. It would be far better, unless you wish to smother the federation, to let these people mix with other ranks and so remove any possibility of the creation of a distinct class separate and apart from the others, and encourage that comradeship and fellowship which is so necessary if the Police Force is to go on as well in future as it has done in the past. We hope that this Amendment will be carried and the Clause left out. Indeed, I should like to see the Bill rejected altogether. It is a mistake, and the Government would be well advised to let well alone.
All the outside evidence proves that for efficiency the Metropolitan Police Force stands unrivalled among the police forces of the world. If anyone had come to the House only four or five months ago and suggested that the Metropolitan Police Force was inefficient, I can imagine the howls of indignation which would have gone up from all quarters of the House. Now the Home Secretary, in supporting the Bill, puts up an argument that he wants greater efficiency, and suggests that he is not getting the efficiency that he desires at the present time. A great
many Members would not be prepared to accept the Home Secretary's statement as to the inefficiency of the Police Force without far greater evidence than has been produced. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) suggested that there might be some modification of the Clause, but we believe that the best thing would be to reject the Clause and the Bill as a whole. We agree that there is a case for a Police College, because the more education we can give to the police the better it will be for the community and the force, but we suggest that this Bill is going about the matter in the wrong way. It raises class distinctions and makes it appear to many people that those who so deplore the class war are the very people who are introducing it by this Bill.

3.55 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): If we are to believe some of the speeches to which we have just listened, the Government and I desire to destroy the Police Federation. Let me assure the House that if I had a desire to do that I should have done it quite frankly. The easiest way would have been to take powers to abolish it. I have not done so; the Police Federation remains and can still exercise their powers of representation on subjects which are of interest to them in the proper manner and through the proper channels. That power remains with them, and therefore it is pure humbug to try and say in this House, and to make the men outside believe, that there is an intention on the part of the Government to destroy that power of representation. Those of us who have had to study this problem know how in the past the House set up this federation to meet a difficult problem. We know also that the House, in setting it up, clearly drew a line and excluded certain officers from the federation. On this occasion the line is only being drawn in a slightly different place. In the past the superintendents were not included. In this new scheme we are admittedly setting up a college with the definite purpose of having a class of police officer who will have it as part of his training and his duty to make himself closely conversant with all the needs of the rank and file of the force.
Let me say, in reply to those who think that the work of the federation will* be less necessary in the future than in the past, that we trust that that will be so. Indeed, it would be foolish to attempt to adopt a reorganisation of the force as we have been doing if it were not so. It is for the very reason that we think that these causes of complaint and the difficulties which have arisen in the past will be removed that we are taking the step to have a proper training college for the officers in the force. If we were not making this change now, we should have an absurd position in which we should exclude certain sections of those at the college from the Police Federation and others would not be excluded. It is far better that there should be an esprit de corps among those in the college on the one side, and an esprit de corps among those outside the college on the other. I do not believe that there should necessarily be any material difference of opinion between those two sections. So far as the opinions of the rank and file in the federation may at any time differ from the opinions or the actions of those who are outside the federation, they have their method of representation, and they will have in the future as much as in the past that possibility of putting their case to the authorities and of having it properly investigated. It is obvious to the House that we cannot accept the Amendment.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: The Home Secretary has stated that it is humbug for us to believe that the object of the Government is to destroy the Police Federation. After listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I can only say that he is a past master in that art for I have rarely listened to a more humbugging speech in this House. I was not surprised to hear him say that he could not accept the Amendment. I knew perfectly well that he could not. This Clause is essential to the Bill and to the design of the Government behind the Bill. It is essential to the design of the Government to militarise, or rather Hitlerise, the Police Force of this country and to render the Police Federation absolutely useless at the bidding of a self-advertising autocrat, a militarist, who, unfortunately, is now in command of the Police Force, whose bidding the Home Secretary obeys and
who is doing his utmost to destroy the morale of the finest Police Force in the world. Everyone, not only in this House but throughout the country, admits that the London Police Force is the admiration of the world, and has been so up to this time. It is, however, essentially a civil force like its fellow-bodies in the Provinces. I am only sorry that the Metropolitan Police Force is not under a public authority democratically elected, such as the London County Council, as are the police in the Provinces. Unfortunately it is not, and for that reason we have to be very careful to consider these encroachments which are now being made upon the character of the force. There is no doubt that this is a civil force, and because it is a civil force it possesses a federation through which it can express its views to those in authority above.
No one could have read the Commissioner's report issued a few months ago without seeing throughout the whole of that report a feeling of animosity and hatred of the federation on the part of the Commissioner, who has the outlook and the mentality of those people who lost the War for Germany and would have lost it for England if the German generals had not been as incompetent and stupid themselves. The object of the Government is to destroy the federation and, as the right hon. Gentleman has just admitted, to divide the Police Force into two classes—an officer class, and a class of men who are under them and who simply have to obey their orders and do their dirty work. At the present moment the Police Federation includes everybody, I believe, in the Police Force beneath the rank of superintendent. That is to say it includes chief inspectors, sub-divisional inspectors, inspectors, sergeants and constables, but under the new system advocated by the Government, and embodied in this Bill, chief inspectors and sub-divisional inspectors are no longer to be allowed to belong to this body. Moreover, the new ranks proposed, station inspectors and junior station inspectors, are not to be allowed to come in. Those are the gentlemen who, I believe, it is proposed shall come from Eton—I do not know whether Harrow is excluded—and from certain of our universities and public schools who are not to be allowed to soil their hands by belonging to a federation to which their juniors in the Police Force are to
belong for the time. Not only that, but I understand that in order to get this new class of people into the Police Force the Commissioner intends to adopt the system by which boys leaving secondary schools at 17 or 18 can get jobs in the police stations somewhere or other until they get old enough to join the Police Force and go through the staff college.
Under this scheme the only people allowed to join the federation are the constables—I suppose the long-service constables and also the new 10-year constables—sergeants and inspectors. The line is drawn there. I suppose it is to include those who hold the present rank of inspector, but I rather suspect that in the future the right hon. Gentleman proposes some modification of the plan under which they shall not be allowed in either. The federation is being deprived of the authority which comes from the fact that senior officers in the Police Force belong to it. Constables, sergeants and a certain number of inspectors only are to be allowed in the federation. All these new and higher grades are not to be allowed to join. Surely that means that the federation will lose its prestige, and the representations it makes, therefore, will be treated with contempt by the Home Office and the Commissioner—a similar sort of contempt to that I feel for him.
There is another point. Everyone knows that in the Police Federation, as in trade unions, the able and energetic men come to the front. They become leaders of the federation, and are able to put their views to the authorities in an able way. Therefore, they are just the men who are likely to get promotion. They are just the men fitted for promotion, and directly they get it they will have to leave the federation, which will be deprived of its leaders and its spokesmen. That is a very old story which runs through all English history. Whenever democracy throws up a leader, the governing class try to detach that leaders from the workers. We have recent examples of that. Just as the Dominions Secretary has been seduced by the dining-out habit, and just as the Prime Minister has been seduced by the smiles of society hostesses, and the insincere flattery of the same people, so the able men in the Police Force will be taken away from the men by being promoted to higher ranks. Therefore, so far as London is concerned, the federation will gradually dwindle
away and die. The Home Secretary said that he was not going to commit murder. It is not to be direct murder. The federation is not to be killed now; the right hon. Gentleman prefers the method of slow starvation.
The Home Secretary has admitted that the Police Force is to be divided into two classes—the so-called officer class and the rank and file. At the present moment, because they are in this federation, and because they are generally drawn from working-class people, they are one body. They are in the federation working and discussings things together. You are going to deprive them of that spirit. The Home Secretary says that in future the officers will know the men quite well, and be able to mix with them as before, not, however, in the federation meetings, but on the field of recreation, I suppose, on the rifle ranges and in the revolver pits which are being set up, goodness knows for what reason—the rifle and revolver ranges where the new Hitler force which the Government are setting up are to be trained to shoot down the workers of this country. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman got that idea the other day from his friend Herr Rosenberg, whom he treated so courteously, or perhaps he got it at the Police Conference which was held last year in Rome at the invitation of Signor Mussolini. We see in this the methods of Berlin and Rome.
The Home Secretary in Committee made a most remarkable statement. It was pointed out to him that not only is our present Police Force drawn from the ranks of the workers, the people, but they live among them. Their homes are in working-class streets. They know the people around them. They are not recruited as some special kind of class like the continental police. One of the French philosophers, M. Chateaubriand, said that the nature of the police is essentially inimical to freedom. That is so where you have a militarised police force as you have abroad. Our police live among the people, and know their ways of life. When this was pointed out to the Home Secretary in Committee, he made this remarkable statement, which seems to require further explanation:
As I visualise it, there is going to be a far greater personal touch and a far greater personal knowledge of all the circumstances of the men, of their homes, of the houses in
which they live. Hon. Members opposite are largely interested in the question of housing, and one of the great weaknesses, in my view, as regards the welfare of the Police Force, has been the fact that at the present time there is no class of men able to go about as these police officers will be able to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C.) 30th May, 1933. Col. 14.]
What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that statement At the present moment a policeman off duty can visit another policeman, take off his helmet, loosen his belt and have a cup of tea or other light refreshment. But now the right hon. Gentleman, apparently, visualises another class of policeman altogether, drawn from another class, going round visiting the homes of the police, inquiring into their methods of life, the character of their homes, looking at the bookshelves and seeing what sort of books they read, and finding out what their political opinions are. The Home Secretary was right when he said he did not propose to set up an officer class. He is setting up a class of spies. They will be known as Trenchard's or Gilmour's spies—

Mr. SPEAKER: That question doe? not arise on this Clause.

Mr. COCKS: On that point of Order. It was on this Clause that the Home Secretary made the remark which I have quoted.

Mr. SPEAKER: I was not present on that occasion.

Mr. COCKS: If you had been, Sir, perhaps you would have called the Home Secretary to order. Because we dislike this Hitlerite atmosphere brought into our Police Force, because we want to preserve the traditions of the Police Force as in the past, we oppose this Clause, as we oppose the whole Bill, and we intend, when we get into power, to do our best to reverse any decision come to by this House this afternoon.

4.14 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I would like to add my voice to the plea for the abolition of this Clause, and all the more because I am, to a very large extent, in sympathy with the proposal for a Police College. The House may wonder how it affects a university representative. It does very closely, if I may say so, because, as I see it, one of the main objects of these proposals, so far as they concern the
Police College, is to make it possible to get a better educated type of man into the force by making the conditions more suitable to such men. But while I believe that that will be a real gain to the force, and while I think the Opposition are quite mistaken in decrying, as they continually do, the advantages of higher education—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The Leader of the Opposition, on the Second Reading of this Bill, spoke very definitely on the subject. He said:
Will someone also tell us what a particular thing it is in a university training which enables them to deal with crime more efficiently than other people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1933; col. 962, Vol. 278.]

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not really come in under this Clause.

Miss RATHBONE: I was aware at the moment that I was diverting a little, but I did so because of the interruption. While I welcome this Bill so far as it provides what is, to my mind, a really necessary means of bringing into the Police Force men of superior education who are not attracted by a method of recruitment which requires them to spend long years in routine work and drudgery, I have all along foreseen that there were real grounds for the apprehensions of the opponents of the Measure. Those grounds centre round this point—that they believe the object is not merely to get better educated men into the force, but to drive a sword or an axe through the force and separate it into two sections. The words of the Home Secretary in defending the Clause this afternoon really give some ground for that apprehension. He said: "We want to see an esprit de corps in the college and an esprit de corps in the rest of the Police Force." In other words, there are to be two bodies and two spirits, separated. This particular Clause, which shuts out the superior grades from the Police Federation, is another indication of a tendency which was only too plain in that remark of the right hon. Gentleman.
The question I want to ask the House is this: Is not the Bill really attempting to secure its end in a way that is likely to cause, quite unnecessarily, the maximum of suspicion and hostility, more especially this particular Clause? Why it is infra dig,because I suppose that is is the idea, for higher officers of the Police Force to belong to the same federation as the lower ranks? If you
want real inter-communion and cooperation between the different grades, if you want the kind of spirit and sympathy and understanding that ought to prevail between the lower and the upper grades of the force, is there anything wrong in the upper grades adopting the more democratic methods that are expressed m the Police Federation? As was said by several speakers on the Second Beading, in 99 per cent. of their actual work the police are dealing with the lower ranks of the people, in their intimate lives, and therefore knowledge and understanding of the lower ranks are inevitably required. Will you get that better if you not only try to get, as I believe we ought to try to get, the best minds and the quickest minds, and in order to get the best and the quickest minds absolve them from going through a long and wearisome period of drudgery, if at the same time you make it clear that you want to create two separate classes? If they have come from the working class you want them is break the links they formed in the days when they were in the ranks.
We are told that the Police College is to be recruited not only from university men brought in by examination and interview, but that the same methods of examination and interview are to be applied to the men who have got their experience and proved their efficiency in the ranks. I should like to see more security that a large part of the higher ranks will be drawn from the lower ranks, because even though the others may have better trained minds it will be very difficult for them to make up for the lack of knowledge of the ways and thoughts and mode of speech of the men they have to work with. The two objects to be sought are to secure the best trained minds and yet minds that still have the common touch, minds that speak the language of the people and are understanded of the people. If you want to combine those two things then, though you may have to have your Police College, you ought to bear in mind the training they will get in the Police College in contact with recruits most of whom have got their education in the public schools and universities. There is a danger that they will loose their common touch, lose the kind of expertise which they gained in their own lives when working in the police ranks and living in their working-class homes. It is far better to try to com-
bine both things—to let them have their superior education in the Police College, but able to keep in touch with their friends.
Another thing we have to recognise is that there is a very real and strongly-grounded apprehension, which is taking stronger hold every year upon the minds of the working people, that there may, some day, come a revolution in this country which will not necessarily be instigated and incited from below. We have got into the habit of thinking that revolutions always surge up from below, but the experience in the North of Ireland before the War, and since then in Italy and in Germany and in other countries in Europe, has shown that revolutions are not always initiated from below. Sometimes they are initiated by classes who fear to lose the privilege of their class and think that they will strike first. The idea is that if the democracy seek to push reforms too far then they, the upper class, will step in and pervert the Constitution in order to secure their own privileges. That fear is a very real and insistent and spreading fear among people to-day. It is beginning to make the people doubt the value of democracy.
I can hear around me whispers of "Rubbish" and "Nonsense." If it is rubbish and nonsense why do things which give countenance to that idea, why give grounds of suspicion by introducing into what is, in many respects, a good and reasonable and perhaps necessary Bill, provisions which indicate that you really do want to cut off the top ranks of the Police Force and make them feel that they are superior people belonging to an upper grade in society? Does not that lend some colour and suspicion to the idea that you really do want to see that the forces of law and order are in the hands of the propertied classes, and that the men who are at the top and ruling the forces of law and order shall think in the ways of the propertied classes? You do not want them to belong to a vulgar thing like the Police Federation and to talk in the commonplace language of the ordinary constable; you want to make them feel that that would be a little below their dignity. By all means let them have their own esprit de corps,but it must be a different esprit de corps from that of the common constable. If this small
Clause to create a single grade who are not to belong to the Police Federation shows the way the current is flowing, I do not wonder the Opposition feels that it intensifies the suspicion with which they regard what is, in certain respects, a perfectly good Bill.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am rather surprised that a Clause of this description should be brought in by the Home Secretary. We are now at the turning point when people of the higher ranks in the police service are to be taken away from the communal life of the people, from the ordinary intercourse of daily contact, and segregated in a special class and I ask hon. Members to contemplate where that is leading us. If community life in the Police Force means anything at all it means that the force of character and the prestige of an individual leave an impression upon the particular section of persons of whom he is in charge. We are now proposing to create two classes inside the force, one of a supervisory or administrative character and the other in which those who belong to it will do the routine work in the streets. The professorial class, the academic policemen, will be studying in college while the practical policeman will be out in the streets. We are going to set up professional policemen to tell us how to do things, and these trained men of the higher class are to be kept away from the practical men. It is most essential that we should have competent men to look after the management of the streets and the classes in the streets, and to do that they must have a common understanding with the people, man to man.
I hate to think that, possibly, this line of demarcation is to be introduced into the Police Force, and that by any innuendo from any Member of this House it should go out to the public that a military system or a new caste is to be introduced. Policemen learn their business in the streets and not in colleges. I have seen some of the professional men who have been made head constables. After six months on the streets they had been made inspectors; but in their case their fathers or uncles or brothers or mothers had been in a position to "give them a kick along." They got their sergeant's stripes very quickly. There must be comradeship in the Police Force, that par-
ticular link which binds them solidly as a body, because in a society like the present, where anything may happen, it is not a good thing to have divisions in the Police Force. From the point of view of the public safety and from the point of view of the Constitution a contented Police Force, either in the Metropolis or anywhere else, is absolutely essential.
It is because I feel that to be the case that I think the Home Secretary is entering on dangerous ground. The ostracism of an officer who has been brought up with his men and has won the confidence of his men will be an appalling thing. In an emergency it is essential that the members of the force should have confidence in those who lead them and be able to back them. In a discontented force we should not, in an emergency, get that comradeship, that unity and that integrity which are so essential. Fancy an officer class being set up in England of all nations! That may be all right for other States which view these things from a more military point of view, but I do not think that the people of England require to see the drastic changes that are proposed in this Bill. We have no right to modernise our State on this basis. Our people are more enlightened. I am fully convinced that our public schools, elementary schools and secondary schools provide—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must keep to the Motion that is before the House.

Mr. LOGAN: I am merely pointing out that this segregation will have a marked effect. The Clause will set up a school and as a result there will be a special class which will govern the police in the future. I am not speaking because of what I see before me, but because I can foresee the future, and I want to register my protest emphatically against what the Home Secretary is doing. I am convinced that neither Lord Trenchard nor the Home Secretary is fully alive to the meaning of the present situation. I would like to see more backbone in the Home Secretary, and more initiative.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Clause only deals with the proceedings of the Police Federation.

Mr. LOGAN: With all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, when a Minister brings in a Bill it is quite relevant to speak of
his backbone, especially when, to judge from the Measure before us, he appears to lack that backbone that should be so essential in police administration. I refer to that particular part of his anatomy because I feel that the Minister ought to have more of it. He would show more of it if he deleted this Clause from the Bill.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. WALLHEAD: do not suppose that any word that I can say at this late hour will have any influence upon the Home Secretary, but I want to say, quite sincerely, that I think he is making a very great mistake in putting forward this Bill. He is adding to the gravity of his mistake by the inclusion of this Clause. It is a dangerous move. If at the head of the Metropolitan Police Force there were a civilian, instead of a man of military character, we should not have this Bill before us. I do not believe that a civilian head of the Police Force would have dreamed of a Bill like this.
Some time ago I had the pleasure of listening to a talk between two police constables, one presumably a London constable and the other brought over from Paris. The talk was one of a series from Broadcasting House and the men were discussing the conditions of their occupation. I was very much struck with the difference in their point of view. They were representative men, selected by their comrades to put that point of view. The question was asked: "What is your attitude towards the people with whom you come into contact? How do you regard them?" The reply of the London constable was: "We regard the people of London as our friends, and we are there for the purpose of assisting them." The point of view of the Parisian policeman was that he was in perpetual conflict with the population of Paris. There was no conciliating of different points of view. The point of view of the London constable was a very admirable one, that is well worthy of being fostered and maintained. I am afraid that the establishment of a special officer class under the terms of this Bill will tend to make that point of view disappear, although not at first.
It is evident that there is going to be a different kind of discipline of a more militaristic character than is the case at
the present time. Officers of a military type need different qualifications and characteristics from men who are part of a civilian force such as the police. I should have thought that the Police Federation would have been an admirable body in which to bring together the various grades making up the civilian force. The new force will meet as officers and men, and no consultation will take place between the officers and the men. The men will not be encouraged to tender advice to their superiors. In the federation, I take it, men at the present time come together in a more or less informal manner, and the officer tends to drop his specific character during the time when he is present as a member of the branch of his federation. He can obviously get into closer contact with the men than would be the case as between the privates of the regiment and a lieutenant or captain.
What is the characteristic required? The psychology of the crowd can be studied best by contact with the crowd, and men who are in contact with the crowd understand that psychology. The private soldier is not required to understand the psychology of the crowd, but a policeman must understand it if he is to be successful. A man who is to be trained from a military point of view will, I am quite sure, ultimately lose the touch that is needed most in the Police Force. Reference has been made to fears that have been expressed that this is a move in the direction of creating a force that can be used with more precision and with greater certainty in case there is trouble in future—in case the middle class feel that their privileges are attacked. That point of view has been admirably put by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). More than 50 years ago, Karl Marx, with a touch of genius, said that the middle class would become revolutionary, and would force a revolution when it was faced with submergence into a class below it. That is what has happened in Germany and in Italy. The middle class feared submergence and forced a revolution in Germany, with Hitler at the head. What we all see and must deplore is the government of Germany by a set of unspeakable thugs. We do not want that here, and we do not want any approach to it. If any word
of mine could influence the right hon. Gentleman, I would urge him to withdraw this Clause. It is not for the good of the police. There is a fear in the Police Force that the principle of it will be extended.
My constituency has a turbulent history. Over 100 years ago men were shot in the streets of Merthyr Tydvil and bloodshed has taken place there more than once. It has a long history of strife and struggle. With all the strife and struggle that has taken place in the last 16 years in the coalfields of South Wales, and while there has been conflict in the areas of Glamorgan, a county controlled by a militarist police chief, in the borough of Merthyr Tydvil we have never had a. cracked window pane. There has been no conflict of any kind whatever. During the worst period of the strike of 1926, the Police Force in Merthyr Tydvil was below strength and the chief constable was urged to bring in additional men from outside, or even to accept the aid of the military, for fear of trouble, but the police felt so sure that the tact of a wise chief constable, who had been trained by a man as wise as himself—Chief Constable Wilson, of Cardiff—would maintain order. Those two men maintained order without the slightest trouble because they understood the people with whom they were dealing, and, instead of creating difficulties, as the militarist invariably does, they avoided it, while the surrounding areas had trouble of a particularly disagreeable kind. That is one of the features that ought to be encouraged. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this Clause back while there is time and to rely upon the common sense of the civilian who is in constant touch with civilian crowds and knows how to deal with their various moods. If he does so, it will redound to his credit and honour, and to the credit of the force of which he is in control.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The House is entitled to have a fuller reply from the Government than we have already had. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that up to now he has been the only spokesman upon this matter. His own defence of the Clause was hardly adequate to the condition of affairs at the present moment. A change is proposed in the Police Federation. As I
understand the position at the moment, a certain number of higher officers are entitled to be members of the federation. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has this afternoon provided any reason for the change that is proposed 2 It is for him to prove to the House that the situation that has prevailed since the federation was formed has militated against the well-being of the Police Force. He has not yet proved that the fact that superior officers are associated with the lower officers and the men in one federation has in any way militated against the well-being of the force. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman here and now to give us any evidence which will lead this House to the conclusion that it is bad, that it has proved bad in practice, for superior officers to be associated with the men in a federation. It is not for us, I submit, to prove the necessity for no change; it is for the right hon. Gentleman to prove the necessity for any change. It is he who has initiated the change, not we, and therefore, he must take the House into his confidence and show what his case is for the change.
We have had evidence of a very limited character. We have not had it from the Home Secretary himself; we had it from the Under-Secretary some time ago. I hope I am not doing the Under-Secertary an injustice—I do not want to do so in the slightest degree— but he took the House into his confidence and said that there had been certain evidence, shall I say, of indiscipline and so on; and so tremendously conscious was the Under-Secretary of the heinousness of the offence that we almost had to drag it out of him. He said," I would not like to say this for all the world unless the Leader of the Opposition compels me to say it." What were the dreadful secrets which he revealed to the country? There were two. One was in relation to the administration of the Police Orphanage. He told us that a resolution was carried on the 14th August, 1931, at a meeting of the federation. The House must bear in mind, for it is important, and it is fair to the men to do so, that this orphanage is not an orphanage in relation to which the men as such have no voice, or ought to have no voice. I am told that the men themselves contribute directly £14,000 a year towards the maintenance
of this institution. Having made this substantial contribution to the orphanage, they came to the conclusion that certain proposals in relation to its future governance were proposals which gave offence to them as contributors, and they carried a resolution, which the Under-Secretary read to the House. I confess that, having read it over and over again, I see nothing very dreadful in it, and certainly I see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should have made such a mystery of it. Let me read it again. After a statement of the resolution, it says:
Can it, therefore, be wondered at that the members of the service consider the whole business to be a travesty of justice and fair dealing and hold strongly to the view, in spite of the denial given by the Commissioner, that it is a direct attack upon branch board representation? A report of some of the remarks made at the general court will help to convince the Commissioner of this.
Putting it at its worst, importing into these words the most dreadful meaning that it is possible to import, what, after all, do they amount to? Do they provide a case for changing the organisation of the Police Federation? Suppose that that were bad; grant, if you like, that there is something in that statement that is irregular; that does not afford a case for reorganising the federation; it does not afford a reason for drawing a line of demarcation between superior officers and inferior officers; it merely provides, as far as I can see, a reason for offering a censure on the men, even supposing it to be a ground for that. Let me put the other side of the case. Surely, people who contribute £14,000 a year out of their own savings are entitled to a word as to how this institution, which they support, shall be conducted. Anyhow, do not let us have the Under-Secretary suggesting that to ask for a legitimate share in the governance of an institution of this sort is in any way to question the right of the Home Office to expect these men to be properly disciplined.
What was the other case? The other case was the publication of a notice at the Cannon Row Police Station in relation to the salary cuts. After all, I do not suppose that, when the Cabinet imposed upon themselves a cut at the time of the financial crisis, it was at all popular among them. Who among us hails with joy the application of a cut in his salary? Will those who feel enthusiasm about a
cut in their salaries at any time please put up their hands? Where is the man who is really enthusiastic when he feels that he is going to have less salary in the future? And yet, because these men exercise their legitimate right and protest, not against the first cut, but against the second cut, that again is put forward as a ground for alleging insubordination. Even supposing for the sake of argument that that is insubordination, it is no argument in favour of changing the organisation of the federation. I submit that no case has been made for dividing this federation into two.
The hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) quite rightly directed attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He said that we must have an esprit de corps among the officers on the one side, and an esprit de corps among the men on the other. We are to have a dividing line; between the two there is to be a great gulf fixed. That is what the right hon. Gentleman said. Really, it is a dreadful thing, in my judgment, to bring in this new and clear line of differentiation between the officer class above a certain grade and the others. The officers are to be certain grades above the salt; the rest are to be below the salt. There are to be the sheep and the goats, to use another simile. They will be like Jews and Samaritans; they will have nothing to do with one another. How are these men to make representations? Is the situation to be reduced to one in which the men must always be formulating their charges or their complaints in writing? There are many complaints that, if they are only mentioned to a superior officer by word of mouth, can be disposed of like lightning, but if men are to be reduced eternally to setting down their complaints in writing, really there will be something lost to the federation, and there will be something lost to the force which the force cannot very well afford to do without. I beg the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary to take us a little further into their confidence. We are entitled to know more fully what is the real reason for this change.
When the federation came into being, it came into being, as I understood it, to meet a felt want at the time, to provide the men with an instrument whereby they might defend themselves, if you like,
whereby they might defend their rights— to provide them with a vehicle by which they might convey their hopes, suspicions and desires to higher quarters. We know that there was a grave disturbance when the federation was formed, and the federation was formed to deal with it— to relieve the pressure. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that there is no discontent now. that there is no pressure now? Is not the case for the federation just as strong to-day as it was in 1919? I have no interest in it, but I venture to hazard a guess that the case for the federation to-day is just as strong as, if not stronger than, it was 11 or 12 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman may think that now, 12 years later, he may be able to remove this instrument which Parliament created. What will he put in its place? Is he going to tell the men that they have no need for a federation any longer? This thing cannot stop in London; it will spread all over the country. Every one of us, therefore, is involved in this business to-day, and that is why we attach so much importance to it. London cannot be isolated in this matter. Every watch committee up and down the land will be invited sooner or later to follow this example. We are entitled, therefore, to know, in the interests of our own localities, what the Government are proposing to set up instead of this federation. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that, if he strikes this blow at the federation to-day, he is striking off one of the most effective instruments that the police have ever had for demonstrating their united voice and their united votes.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: May we ask the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary to give us a little more information on this matter? I do not want to take part in the discussion on this Motion to leave out Clause 3, and am very reluctant to do so, but, surely, we are entitled to something more than the very limited explanation which was given by the right hon. Gentleman. Since this question has been before the House, not a single reason has been given why the federation should be dealt with in this manner, except what the Under-Secretary gave us at the close of the Second Reading Debate, and I do not think there is any
difference of opinion among Members of the House that that explanation was in fact no explanation. The right hon. Gentleman and his advisers are forgetting that the federation was established to provide a means by which police officers could communicate their discontent, or any request that they had to make, to the Commissioner and the authorities in general. They did this on those two occasions, and I cannot for the life of me believe that those two occasions are sufficient to justify dealing with the federation in the manner now proposed, and grading it into two halves.
As I understood the right hon. Gentleman when he introduced the Bill, and as I understood the White Paper, the force is to be divided. I shall have something to say about that proposal later in the evening, and I will not go into it at any length now, but I understood that the reason for dividing the force, and introducing this, so to speak, dual membership of the force, was in order to deal with more serious crime. There was no proposal that the new men were not to mix with the others, or that any danger would arise because of such mixing. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us that he wants these men now out of the federation in order that crime may be more effectively detected? Does he think that the corruption that has existed at the top will be got rid of by dividing the force in this way? Does he assume that the fact that the heads were members of the federation made them more open to corruption than otherwise? The thing to me is absurd. We are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman, or the Under-Secretary, to take the House further into his confidence and to tell us what is the effective reason that has led them to want to break up the federation. It was established in a time of difficulty and crisis, and people believed, when it was established, that it was a permanent means, similar to what exists in industry, to enable the men to get into communication with the authorities whenever there were any grievances to be discussed. Now it is to be destroyed. You will have a different relationship between the chief officials and the men, and it is a perfectly reasonable request that we should be told what is the reason for what is proposed in this Clause.

5.3 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should hesitate not to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal, but I have, indeed, little to add to what I have already said. It is clear that the Clause makes one simple alteration. It does not, as has been repeatedly asserted, abolish the federation. Hon. Members in all parts of the House must be clearly able to realise that in the past there were certain circumstances which the rank and file of the Police Force desired to have an opportunity of bringing to the notice of those in authority. That opportunity remains to-day as much as in the past. It is not interfered with. The actual responsibility of those senior officers who now are going to be placed in a fundamentally different position because of their training in the Police College — [Interruption.] Is it not true to say that hon. Members opposite do not oppose the setting up of a Police College in which those who are responsible for the leadership of the police shall have an opportunity of learning their job?

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us in what way that disqualifies them from carrying on membership of the federation? If they are better trained, surely their better training should be at the disposal of their comrades, helping them, in discussion and so on, to understand the business better.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It was never the intention that the officers should be in the federation. The federation was established because there were some in the rank and file who felt that they had not an opportunity of representing to the authorities the feelings of the rank and file. The officers, of course, have had opportunities of representing their point of view, and anyone who says they have not does not know how this thing works to-day. It is clear that those who have responsible authority over the police are responsible directly to the Commissioner and to those in authority, and they have the fullest opportunity of putting their point of view to the Commissioner every day of their lives.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Jointly?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In any form that they please.

Mr. JONES: Is there any means whereby, if they have a common griev-
ance, they can represent it to their superior officers except through the federation, and is there any means by which they can discuss these grievances with their superior officers except through the federation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "common grievance," but inspectors, sergeants and constables have now, and will have in the future, their opportunity of putting any grievance, whether a sectional or a common grievance. Superior officers have access to those in authority now. This only draws the dividing line at a slightly different point from where it was in the past. It does not interfere with the proper operation of the federation. It is not my desire to exacerbate this discussion by commenting on any past lapses in the method of administration. I am looking to the future; This reconstruction is brought about by the fact that for over 100 years nothing has been done to put the proper organisation of the Metropolitan Police Force upon a sound basis, and it is because of the necessity of so doing that we are asking that there shall be this slight difference, which does not touch the interests of the rank and file and which will, in my judgment, add to the efficiency of the force.

Sir P. HARRIS: Does this Clause apply to the provincial force?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I said, when intro ducing the Bill, that it dealt with the Metropolitan Police Force and that it arose out of circumstances peculiar to the Metropolitan Police Force. It has and can have nothing whatever to do with any other force than the Metropolitan Force. 5.8 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Gentleman., in his very illuminating reply, has studiously avoided stating the reason for drawing this line of demarcation at a different point from what it has been drawn hitherto. It is not good enough to say that the thing has been done this way for 100 years and that it is time to have a change. The right hon. Gentleman might just as well say the thing has always existed, and, therefore, you should not have a change. It is only a sort of inverted Toryism that he is putting forward. He is not giving a reason in the least. What is the nature of the change that he desires? Is it that he
desires to have a separate officer caste altogether 2 Is it that he objects altogether that people of one service, but of different rank, should act together? Does he want to divide the force? The force has existed for a large number of years, and there has never been a violent dividing line at this point. The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to relate any of the defects of the force to the fact that the men and officers met in one federation. He has never put forward the suggestion that there is a lack of respect on the part of the rank and file for their officers. There is no suggestion that they do not obey orders.
I have never seen a series of arguments put forward with so little relationship to the proposals. In not a, single instance has the right hon. Gentleman attempted to relate his remedy to any alleged defect. We have heard that you must have highly-skilled people to catch the highly-skilled criminals of the day. Will the fact that you are going to draw a bigger gulf between the rank and file and the officers help to catch these superior criminals I Does anyone imagine that the way to catch criminals is to have an organisation in which you separate the officer from the man as much as possible? I imagine the point is that you have a man so drilled that, when an officer gives him an order, be jumps to it. The sole idea of having a great gulf between officers and men in the Army was that years ago the man in the ranks was supposed to be totally uneducated and not to think for himself, and you had to make a gulf between him and the officer so that the officer should be a man like a god whose will was law, and that whatever he said the man did.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Do the officers or the men catch the criminals?

Mr. ATTLEE: That is what we should like to know from the Home Secretary. I am trying to visualise a new force of men, all standing strictly to attention and catching criminals when the officer tells them to do so, because that is the scheme in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. As a matter of fact, that idea has been given up in all kinds of military forces to-day. The whole idea of a military force is to have thinking people who act for themselves, and to have as close contact as you can between officers and men.
The. right hon. Gentleman wants to put the clock hack and to draw a dividing line. He emphasises it by saying, "These people shall be in different associations altogether, and you must have it, because we are going to educate one lot and send them to a police college." I do not know where he is getting these ideas from, the Air Force or the Army or what. Why does he not go to the Secretary of State for War and suggest that, as soon as an officer in the Guards passes the Staff College, he shall belong to a different class, because they must be kept apart? He knows that that kind of reason is utterly and entirely futile. He had to give some sort of reason, and he said the first thing that came into his head. He is trying to change the character of this force altogether. He does not want a force which is generally in touch and in sympathy with the public. He wants to have a separate cadre of officers drawn from one class who will do the will of what he hopes will be the Tory Home Secretary of the day, and he hopes to break down any sympathy that other members of the force might have with the general public by subordinating them, so that they shall obey (orders strictly, and that is the reason that stands out right through this case for the federation, the college and the temporaries and everything else. It is the desire to change the character of the force in the Metropolis from a force that acts with the people and in sympathy with the people, and believes in the liberty of the people, to a force in the hands of the Home Secretary or the Government to use exactly as they please. It is not the danger from the higher type of criminals of which the right hon. Gentleman is thinking, but of the possibility of danger from the working class, and he wants a force to use against them.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: The last speech of the Home Secretary shows definitely that he is hiding something and is not giving, and does not intend to give, the real reasons why the change in the federation is being made. The Home Secretary has the mind of a Hitler but not the courage of a Hitler. He desires to bring about a state of things in this country—and there is no question of secrecy about it —which he and his class have sought to maintain for a great number of years.
He and the Government of which he is a Member see a change coming which they fear, and they have appointed the present Commissioner, Lord Trenchard, for a specific purpose. There is no question about it. Prom the very day of the appointment of Lord Trenchard hostility was observed, and it could not fail to be observed, between himself and the men whom he commanded. That hostility was apparent in his every action and on many occasions he went out of his way to insult those whom he commanded.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I really must ask that an attack upon an official responsible to me and not able to answer in this House should not be made in this House.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): Apart from that, I think that the speech of the hon. Member is hardly directed to the particular Amendment which we are now discussing.

Mr. McENTEE: I put this to the right hon. Gentleman, and to you too, that he did not hesitate to make an attack upon men who could not reply to him.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is some difference between speaking of a body of men and of an individual.

Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order. The report of the Commissioner is before the House. It is issued in his name, and surely my hon. Friend is entitled to criticise a report issued by him and the Home Office.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the matter can easily be disposed of in the way I hinted to the hon. Member, that his speech did not appear to be on the Amendment before the House.

Mr. LANSBURY: The White Paper upon which this Bill is based dealt with the federation. The Commissioner dealt with the federation and gave reasons why such proposals as are in the Bill should be brought forward, and surely we are entitled to discuss that matter when dealing with a Clause which is based upon the White Paper?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that there are two answers to that point. The first one is that there can be discussion on the White Paper without a personal attack upon a particular individual who is not here, and the other is that
we are not discussing now the whole of the White Paper. The hon. Member must really confine or relate his remarks, whether they refer to a particular individual or not, to the Amendment before the House.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is a very important one, and I should like it clarified' by you Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Bill is based upon the report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolitan area, Lord Trenchard. We ought to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is correct in his contention that we cannot deal with the report from that officer and refer to him by name, when, in fact, everything we are doing to-day is based upon the proposals made by that gentleman?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There are different ways of doing the same thing. It has always been the practice and custom in this House that personal attacks upon officials of State, who are not able to reply, should be avoided.

Mr. LANSBURY: This point is very important. We must mention Lord Trenchard in connection with it because we are criticising his report. No one wishes to say that Lord Trenchard is dishonourable or anything of that sort, but we are entitled to say that we profoundly disagree with his point of view, and surely that is not out of order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Not in the least, but the hon. Member did not confine himself to such phrases.

Mr. McENTEE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to tell us what he objects to? My criticism was that the report dealing with the federation was issued over the name of Lord Trenchard and that therefore we were entitled to discuss the report and mention Lord Trenchard by name. The report as far as it deals with the federation, leads me to believe that in his references to the federation, Lord Trenchard is definitely hostile to the men he commands. The right hon. Gentleman himself gave proof of that contention when for a time he endeavoured to avoid mentioning the reasons for the breaking-up of the federation, and was afterwards induced to mention two really
trivial resolutions for passing which the federation was responsible. They are taken as the pretext for smashing up the federation, and surely I am entitled to say if things of comparatively little importance are magnified by Lord Trenchard and by the right hon. Gentleman into reasons for smashing the federation which has existed for many years, that that is a definite proof of hostility by the Commissioner Lord Trenchard towards the whole of the men he commands. As the right hon. Gentleman will not give any reason, I have to seek it. Here is a federation which, after an incident in the police history of the Metropolis, was set up with the sanction, and, in fact, at the determination of the Government. They determined that the police should not in future be governed in the same way as they had been in the past, and they refused permission to continue the form of organisation which had existed up to that time and imposed the federation upon the Police Force.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us to-day that it is 100 years since there was any alteration in the law relating to the police, and that therefore it is essential that some alteration should now be made. That fact that the federation was imposed upon the police by the friends of the right hon. Gentleman—the Government of that time—was surely an important change, and now, after experience of the federation, they want to change again. I ask myself: Why? I get a reply, which satisfies me, at any rate, to the effect that the federation was a militant body in the interests of the police, including the officers, and now, because it has been effective and militant, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends introduce Lord Trenchard as an instrument to break it. That is how I view the whole thing, and I consider that I am entitled to say it. The right hon. Gentleman objects because anyone dares to attack his friend, Lord Trenchard. I say what I consider to be the truth about Lord Trenchard in regard to the federation, which he is now with the help of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, endeavouring to break.
A question was put by one of my right hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench which I should have liked to have seen answered, but which was avoided.
What is to happen to those members of the force who will not in future be allowed to join the federation? What is to happen to them if they have a common grievance. The right hon. Gentleman confessed a sort of ignorance and did not understand what was meant by a common grievance. To talk in that way is sheer nonsense. He knows that there can be, and that there are to-day, many common grievances among the officer classes in the Police Force. They will not be permitted to join the federation in future, and will therefore have no common means by which to express their common grievances. He says that they are always in touch with the Commissioner and can see him at any time. I believe that if they go to him as individuals they will receive the same kind of treatment which the ordinary working man receives when, as an individual, he interviews his employer in regard to a grievance. Working men found that as individuals they had no power and were compelled by the circumstances of their every-day working life to form an organisation of some kind, and the police organised in exactly the same way. They formed an organisation which the Government of the day broke up, and the federation was set up in its place, and now the Government want to break the federation, and the reason is that it is not sufficiently pliable for them and dares to express an opinion about the conditions of service of the police. There will not be the contentment in the Police Force which one would like to see. The right hon. Gentleman will not get the service—he does not deserve to get it—which he has received in the past. Although the Government will get their Bill, I hope that they will live sufficiently long—and I do not expect them to live very long— to regret the action which they are taking to-day.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I have been brought to my feet by the statement of the Home Secretary that we ought not to criticise the report of the Commissioner in terms of a personal nature. Our difficulty is that inadequate as the report of the Commissioner has been, the replies of the Home Secretary are even more inadequate. If we were discussing the policy of the Home Secretary, we could direct our attention to what the Home
Secretary has said, but he has not said anything. He has not any policy. It has been characteristic of the Home Office for many years that the Home Secretary never has a policy. The policy is always made by the chief officials in the Home Office. There is no Department of the Government where the civilian authority has less control over policy than in the Home Office. On this occasion, as is the universal practice of the Conservatice party, they have put in charge of the Home Office the least positive and the most guileful of their representatives. They selected a Minister with the most urbane and most docile appearance, in order to act as a suitable decoy to secure from the House of Commons powers which another Home Secretary would not be able to obtain. Often the most sinister proposals are put before the House by the least sinister Minister, and I congratulate the Government on having selected on this further occasion the right person to put these views forward.
I have taken advantage on several occasions in the last few months to speak to provincial policemen about the reorganisation of the Metropolitan Police. Some of us who have had the advantage of local government experience are sometimes brought into communication with the police in circumstances more favourable than the rest of the population, and we take advantage of those opportunities to find out the views of the police. Every time that I have discussed this matter with the police they told me that they cannot understand what is in the Home Secretary's mind. I have told them that they do not know the Home Secretary; otherwise, they would not wonder about that. They have said to me that they did not see how the segregation of this new officer class from the rank and file in the Police Federation is going to assist the police in its special duty of catching criminals. The very last thing we want in the Police Force dealing with so individual a matter as crime is inflexibility. We want a Police Force of the most flexible kind and we want co-operation carried to the utmost extent. The rigid standardisation which is characteristic of military organisation is the very last type of organisation that you want in the pursuit of the criminal. I should have thought that if the purpose of the reorganisation is to catch criminals, you
would try to have a type of Police Force just as individualistic and as adaptable as the criminal classes themselves. Instead of that, you are trying to impose upon the criminal class a type of organisation hopelessly rigid—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member of the nature of the Clause that we are discussing.

Mr. BEVAN: The segregation of the officer class from the membership of the Police Federation is of profound importance for the esprit de corps of the police force as a whole.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will confine his remarks to that point.

Mr. BEVAN: I was pointing out the consequences which I think flow from that segregation. Surely, we are entitled to argue that the segregation of the officer class will unfit the Police Force for the performance of its special duty of catching criminals. I thought that that point was particularly relevant, and I was addressing myself to it. If it is a fact that this reorganisation is devised in order to make the Police Force more efficient, then we are bound to conclude that that efficiency is not the type of efficiency that will catch criminals. No one has yet suggested that this type of organisation is the best, because it makes it easier to catch criminals. The Home Secretary may have said it in passing— he has said many things in passing—but he has not proved it; in fact, he has not proved anything. He has sheltered himself by saying: "I do not want to say anything that will inflame feelings in the Police Force."
This House is asked to give powers under this Bill for the changing of the constitution of a Police Force which has been in existence for 100 years, and we are entitled to have more adequate explanation than we have received up to now. It is obvious why these powers are being sought. It used to be said that the civilian police should remain civilian in character and organisation, because in that way they kept in touch with the temper of the civilian population and gave as little provocation as possible. There is a great deal to be said for that point of view. I have had many experiences where a young and inex-
perienced policeman, out of touch with the crowd who were demonstrating, has said something or done something of a most provocative character and in two or three minutes the whole crowd has been inflamed. On the other hand, I have seen old constables of much greater experience, who knew the temper of the crowd, and to a large extent sympathised with the object of the demonstration, behaving with discretion, with kindness, and with that comradeship which they are always ready to display in order to avoid any provocation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that he is going far beyond the Clause under discussion. He must confine himself to the Clause.

Mr. BEVAN: I understand that the Clause is designed to separate the officer class from the other members of the Police Force in respect of the federation, and I am desiring to point out that this separation, this gulf, must mean that the officers in future will not share the point of view of the rank and file of the Police Force, that when demonstrations take place and the officer in charge of the police at the demonstration gives an order he will act without any intimate knowledge of the point of view of the rank and file constable, and consequently the order is likely to be psychologically bad. That is the point that I am trying to make. The secret is that neither the Home Secretary nor the Commissioner is organising the police in order to avoid trouble but on the basis of the certainty that there is going to be trouble. They are not organising the civilian police to keep civilian peace, but on the assumption that civilian disturbances are inevitable, and that consequently you must have a type of Police Force out of sympathy with the demonstrators, in order that they may be more amenable to the orders of the Home Office and less amenable to the temper of the crowd.
The suggestion has been made on more than one occasion that the civilian police are polluted by the general psychology of the mass of the population and that unless that contamination can be arrested the civilian police may not perhaps be reliable in great civil disturbances, and that consequently you must have inside the Police Force an officer class entirely out of sympathy
with civilian population in order that they may carry out the orders of the Government. That is the secret of the change which the House is being asked to carry out. That is the reason why no longer are you to have the officer and the rank and file of the Police Force sitting together discussing their common grievances and having that sense of kinship and comradeship together which is so essential. You cannot afford it because you are passing into the phase of civil disturbance and into the phase of warfare between the forces of the State and the civilian population.
You are not able to satisfy the civilian population by remedial measures and sane legislation and you are provoking the civilian into demonstration therefore you must have the janissaries of the State who can be relied upon to carry out the orders of the Government. It is entirely a Fascist development. It is to make the Police Force more amenable to the orders of the Carlton Club and Downing Street, if there is a disturbance. The fact that the House has not forced the Home Secretary to disclose what is really behind this Measure more than it has done, shows that the House in its psychology is prepared for this alteration in the Police Force. I am not quarelling with the Home Secretary or the Commissioner. I know that they want to do this and that they need to do it, but do let us recognise the reality of what they are doing and the reason why they are doing it. They want to militarise the upper hierachy of the Police Force because they cannot trust the Police Force. It is to the great credit of the Police Force that they cannot be trusted to carry out the orders that they will be asked to carry out.
I hope that when the Home Secretary addresses the House in future he will do us the honour to give a little more attention to the Bill and to give us adequate information, and not to shelter behind the cowardly statement that he does not want to do anything that will cause bad feeling. It is his duty to bring information before the House, irrespective of the feeling that may be created. It is his duty to produce evidence, but he cannot produce it because there is no evidence in support of his case. He cannot say why he wants this change, because he knows the country would not have it if he said why he wants it. Therefore, he
comes to the House of Commons in this miserable, lame way seeking to alter a Police Force which has up to now been the pride of the civilised world but which will from now fall from its high position.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: The Home Secretary has retired from the battle front and is in the flank somewhere. He has disappointed us because we have asked for information that he and he alone ought to give to the House. It is no use the Home Secretary sheltering behind the statement that this House ought not to discuss the personality responsible for this Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the person responsible for this Bill is the Minister in charge.

Mr. GRENFELL: I shall offer no offence to the Home Secretary or to Lord Trenchard, but we are discussing a matter arising out of a White Paper presented by an official of the Metropolitan Police, the Commissioner, and we have asked the Home Secretary to release the Commissioner from the subject of debate and to come forward with candour and frankness and tell the House why this very drastic change is being undertaken. This is the position as I see it; we have the Police Federation, set up 14 or 15 years ago by this House, and applied to the whole country, the Metropolitan and the Provincial Forces. Now the Home Secretary comes forward and says that the Police Federation is to be allowed to exist and operate, and that its work will be done as heretofore in all parts of the country except the Metropolitan area, but no proper reason has been given for taking the Metropolitan area away from the full advantage which was conferred by this House on the Police Forces when the Police Federation was formed. I have risen for the special purpose of putting this question to the Home Secretary, and I hope the House will support me in my demand. It is the business of hon. Members opposite, just as much as it is the business of hon. Members on this side of the House, to get full information on this matter. It is not enough for the trio of Ministers opposite to be silent when information is asked from them.
The Home Secretary did not do himself justice, or the office he holds, when he gave us the very innocent explanation that the Police Federation is functioning, that it is doing its work, that the rank and file are in consultation with their superiors and that everything is all right. Is that true? I am not blaming the Home Secretary because he has only lately appeared on the scene; he apparently is the innocent decoy to be put forward. The trouble about which we complain was in existence before he became Home Secretary. He says that there is only a slight change, that certain people who were allowed to join the Police Federation will no longer be allowed to join because the force will not be recruited in the same way. Is it true to say that the Police Federation is now functioning as intended? Will the Home Secretary tell us whether the federation is functioning now? Are their meetings allowed? Are the men in the Metropolitan Police Force allowed to meet and discuss their grievances? Are the men and the officers allowed to come together? Is it true that for the last 12 months no meetings of the men have been allowed? I ask for a specific reply to that question. I am told that the Police Federation has not been allowed to operate for the last 12 months; that no meetings of the men have been allowed to take place. I am also informed that only committee men are allowed to meet.
What is the use of the Home Secretary telling us that the federation is carrying on its functions as intended? The reason for this is that someone high up in the Home Office or the Metropolitan Police Force believes that he has a better plan for the administration of the police force. If there is a better plan for the detection of crime and the punishment of the criminal let the House be told of it. I want an answer to these questions, and I think the House should demand an answer; is the federation allowed to operate? Are the men allowed to hold meetings? Is it intended that they shall hold meetings in the future? Is it true that the men have been forbidden to hold meetings and that only committee meetings have been held in the last 12 months? I hope that the Home Secretary, or the
Under-Secretary of State or the Solicitor-General, one of the three, will take the House into their confidence and give us a straight answer.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) has made a very serious statement; and in my view a correct statement. We ought not to allow a division to take place without an answer from the Government upon the points which have been put to them. I happen to know a little about the Police Federation because I once had the honour of addressing a meeting of the Police Federation. It does not fall to the lot of every Member of Parliament to be thus invited; and I am under the impression that this Clause is designed to prevent people like me being asked to speak there again. In view of what the Home Secretary has said I think we ought to know now whether the Police Federation is allowed to meet at all, and also how many meetings have been held during the last 12 months? We should also like to know whether any meetings of the federation have been held apart from the one in the Albert Hall, and that in the Free Trade Hall in Manchester later in the year. These were the only two public meetings, I think, held during the last 12 months. The right hon. Gentleman does not like these meetings of the policemen, nor does he like the officers and the men meeting together in the federation; he does not, in fact, like the men meeting at all.
That is a most important point and, therefore, I will put it again. I can see that I am moving the right hon. Gentleman just a little. Apparently it takes the eloquence of a Welshman, no I mean two Welshmen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Three, four, five !"]—to move the right hon. Gentleman. Is it a fact that the Home Office, through Scotland Yard, is now practically preventing the Police Federation from functioning at all? And, if it is not allowed to function, may we know the reason why? If the Police Federation is allowed to function, will the officers and men under the law as it now stands be allowed to continue to mingle together until after the passing of this Bill through all its stages? I do not know when it will become an Act of Parliament, it has to go to another place yet, but let me
ask these two specific questions. Has the Home Office already decided that the federation shall not function, but, if it is allowed to function at all, do the officers and men mingle together as hitherto, or has the Home Office already decided that this Bill is an Act of Parliament before it has passed through all its stages? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer these questions which have been put with great courtesy as possible?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have already told the House that we are not abolishing the Police Federation; that it will continue; and I stand by that. In so far as the federation meetings are concerned they are going on at the present time as usual, they have not been interfered with. Reference has been made to public demonstrations. There is one meeting of the full federation of the whole country, it represents the whole country, which I attended myself; but if it is a question of having Albert Hall demonstrations then in my judgment as a matter of the proper discipline in the force it is not desirable. That does not infringe any of the rights which Parliament gave under the Act to the federation; it does not touch them. All I have to say is that the federation will be allowed to operate, is operating, and can operate. The only thing which may come in question is having great demonstrations at the Albert Hall or things of that kind. They are not necessary, nor do they help to the proper organisation of the force, and as far as I am responsible I will not agree to them.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is it intended in the future that there shall be any ban on the meetings of the men in the division?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The actual number of meetings which have been held in the past have been excessive, that is quite clear. But there will be no limitation of an unnecessary character, nor will there be a denial of their being able to put their point of view, that I wish to make quite clear. But, as I have told the House, there have been over 400, nearly 500, meetings held in London, which is a gross abuse of the powers given to the federation, and shows that there Is something fundamentally wrong in the system. We are altering the system, we believe that the necessity for them no
longer exists, and in the circumstances we propose to reduce the number.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Home Secretary, arising out of his reply, whether we are to understand that the number of times the men themselves may meet either in their areas or collectively is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman considers he has the right to decide, and he only? Whether in future mass meetings of the men will only be permitted when the right hon. Gentleman himself considers it necessary? Does the right hon. Gentleman think in these circumstances that he can honestly say that he is not altering the whole principle upon which the Police Federation was founded —namely, as a means by which the men could meet together and voice their grievances? Is it not the fact that he is abolishing it for good and all?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind hon. Members that we are now at the Report stage, and hon. Members are not allowed to speak more than once.

Mr. LOGAN: On a point of Order. Have I not the right to ask you a question on a point of Order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I listened to the reply of the Home Secretary, and I find it almost difficult to believe that in 1933 we should have had an answer of the kind he has given. What does it mean? It means that as Parliament has given him the right to become the employer of the Police Force in the London area, he is now, as their employer, proposing to grant them the right to hold meetings provided that these meetings are as he wants them to be. These men have had 400 meetings, and the right hon. Gentleman comes here and, instead of finding out the reason why they have had 400 meetings, says that they are to be less in the future. Policemen are not different from the rest of the community, and if they have held 400 meetings they must have a reason. Instead of the right hon. Gentleman finding out the reason why the men should have held this number of meetings, and finding a cure for their grievances, which would obviate the necessity for 400 meetings, he says, "No, we will not readjust the grievances, we will suppress the right to hold meetings."
That is his case here. He has not said that the men have a legitimate grievance. All that he said was that they have had too many meetings. If he does not want them to have meetings why does he not readjust their grievances? That is the reasonable way. Now he says: "Oh, but they must not have demonstrations; they must not meet at the Albert Hall. They can have a meeting provided that they hold a small meeting and no one knows about it." The police are not to call public attention to their grievances. Policemen surely have a right to meet in public, in as large a hall as they can get, in order to direct public attention to the particular grievances from which they are suffering. It has been the custom throughout the ages that every section of the community had a right to bring pressure to bear on Parliament, so as to get grievances altered from time to time. The only method a policeman can adopt is to have recourse to educating public opinion. Now the Home Secretary benevolently says: "They may have some meetings, but the number must be limited by me, and the occasion on which they hold them must be limited by me." The right of public demonstration is not to exist in future.
I confess that in these days, when Cabinet Ministers and almost everyone in public life are denouncing Hitlerism in Germany, we are dangerously approaching it here. The Prime Minister is still nominally the head of this Government. I am wondering how far he is the head of the Government. I remember the time when he stood for a much more radical outlook than that for which he stands now. I remember him coming to my constituency in 1917 or 1918, and demanding the right for soldiers and sailors to form workmen's councils. I remember that he became very indignant because the soldiers and sailors had not the right to voice their grievances and to approach Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament. Now we see the same Prime Minister as the head of a Government which refuses to these policemen, not what he demanded for sailors and soldiers, but merely an ordinary elementary right, the right to group meetings in their divisions, the right to confer with one another as to their wrongs, the right to hold a demonstration in order to impress public opinion.
If the Home Secretary does the just thing by these men, if he gives them the rights that Parliament would like them to have, he has nothing to fear from meetings, large or small. The reason why he is prohibiting both the large and the small meeting is that he is making attacks on the policeman's standard of life. He is withdrawing from them rights and liberties which they formerly had. He fears public discussion, and he seeks by this method to use powers of repression. It is a step back to the dark days, to the time when Liberals, to their credit, had to make a stand for the expression of opinion by the people. The same efforts were made at that time to curtail the expression of public opinion. I cannot see why the Police Forces of this country should not have their meetings. If the Home Secretary thinks that they are meeting too often, let him grant some of the things for which they are agitating. When policemen meet so often it must be because they have legitimate grievances. The Home Secretary knows that if he found out their grievances and adjusted them, the police would not hold a large number of meetings.
I am not surprised at the Home Secretary. Anyone who knows his past outlook in Scotland, knows that when once he makes up his mind he will never alter it one inch; argument or reason will not move him. Everyone who knew the administration of his office in Scotland knew that, once he said "No," he had one great capacity, and that was to keep on saying "No." Unlike the Prime Minister he had that one saving grace. The Prime Minister changes from "no" to "yes" and "yes" to "no," and then sometimes he is between the two, like Mahommet's coffin midway between earth and heaven. But the Home Secretary keeps on saying "No." It is his one quality. A popular phrase is, "He is a 'yes' man." But the Home Secretary is a "no" man.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: There is one point which the House would like to have cleared before coming to a conclusion on this matter. There is a question with regard to the Police Federation which is troubling the minds of a large number of people who have knowledge of what has been happening. It is not so much a matter of the large public meetings in
the Albert Hall or in a hall of that description, but the question is this: Is it true that in the divisions the Police Federation have not had an opportunity of meeting their men in private, in a meeting of their own where the men themselves have been present? I understand that the committees have met, but I am informed, and have every reason to believe it is true, that the men in the divisions who are in the federation have not had an opportunity of discussing their grievances there. While this Clause is under discussion we ought to be told whether that is correct, whether the men have been stopped from holding meet-

ings of that description, and whether it is intended in future to prevent them from holding meetings of that description.

Mr. A. BEVAN: On a point of Order. A very serious allegation has been made. Is it not possible to have a reply from the Home Secretary or the Solicitor-General?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Question put, "That the words pro- posed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 53.

Division No. 241.]
AYES
[6.10 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Iveagh, Countess of


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.
Cross, R. H.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Albery, Irving James
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Joel, Dudley J. 8arnato


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Ker, J. Campbell


Applln, Lleut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Davies, Ma].Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Davison, Sir William Henry
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Astor,Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kimball, Lawrence


Balllle, Sir Adrian W. M.
Denville, Alfred
Knox, Sir Alfred


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dickie, John P.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Balniel, Lord
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Leckle, J. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Donner, p. W.
Lees-Jones, John


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Doran, Edward
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Drewe, Cedric
Levy, Thomas


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Ayiesbury)
Duckworth, George A. V,
Lewis, Oswald


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Duggan, Hubert John
Llddall, Walter S.


Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Dunglass, Lord
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Locker-Lampson,Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)


Borodale, Viscount
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.J


Bossom, A. C.
Elmley, Viscount
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Boulton, W. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, William


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
MacAndrew, Capt. J, O. (Ayr)


Bracken, Brendan
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Bralthwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
McKie, John Hamilton


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Brown, Col. D.C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Fox, Sir Gifford
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C(Berks.,Newb'y)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Maltland, Adam


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Ganzonl, Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Burnett, John George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Glllet, Sir George Masterman
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Carver, Major William H.
Goff, Sir Park
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cayzer, Ma). Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Grigg, Sir Edward
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, s.)
Grimston, R. V.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Clarke, Frank
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hales, Harold K.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mulrhead, Major A. J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hartington, Marquess of
Munro, Patrick


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Colman, N. C. D.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nunn, William


Conant, R. J. E.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Connor, Terence James


Cooke, Douglas
Herbert, capt. 8. (Abbey Division)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Cooper, A. Duff
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Copeland, Ida
Horsbrugh, Florence
Percy, Lord Eustace


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Petherick, M.


Cowan, D. M.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Plckford, Hon. Mary Ada


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Potter, John


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hurst, Sir Gerald 8.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Pybus, Percy John
Sinclair, Col.T. (Queen's Unv.,Belfast)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Slater, John
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rankin, Robert
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Reld, David D, (County Down)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Reld, William Allan (Derby)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Weymouth, Viscount


Remer, John R.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Robinson, John Roland
Stanley, Hon. O. F. Q. (Westmorland)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ropner, Colonel I—
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertfd)


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Ross, Ronald D,
Storey, Samuel
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Strauss, Edward A.
Wise, Alfred R.


Runge, Norah Cecil
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Withers, Sir John James


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tslde)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Womersley, Walter James


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Band)


Salmon, Sir Isldore
Tate, Mavis Constance
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Thorp, Linton Theodore



Sandeman, Sir A. N, Stewart
Titchfleld. Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Sir George Penny and Mr.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Blindell.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McGovern, John


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy. Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bernays, Robert
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bevan, Aneurln (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir R.w.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rea, Walter Russell


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Janner, Barnett
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick



Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.

CLAUSE 4.—(Appointment of constables for fixed period of service in Metro politan Police Force.)

6.20 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I would preface my remarks in favour of the deletion of this Clause by observing that I have followed the proceedings on this Measure from the very beginning. I was a member of the Standing Committee which went through it Clause by Clause, and line by line, and, however important hon. Members may have considered Clause 3, in my view the changes proposed in Clause 4 are by far the most serious in the Bill. At the same time the Bill without this Clause would be complete, and consequently hon. Members need not have any qualms of conscience that they are destroying the Measure if they vote for the deletion of the Clause. Opposition to the Clause is deep; it runs through all political parties in the House,
and there is a great deal of resentment against it in the ranks of the Metropolitan Police Force itself. In fact the most powerful and effective speech delivered against this Clause in Committee came from a Conservative Member whom I would congratulate heartily on the way in which he marshalled his arguments. I refer to the hon. and gallant Member for the Ardwick Division of Manchester (Captain Fuller). He, however, made but little impression on the Home Secretary, and I am not sure that I shall succeed where he failed. In connection with Clause 3 hon. Members paid various compliments to the Home Secretary. I will add another. He is the Minister above all others in the Government who can say the nastiest things in the nicest way.
This Clause is going to alter the whole character of the Metropolitan Police Force. There are in that force approximately 22,000 men and, in this Clause, the
right hon. Gentleman asks for power to appoint 500 men per annum for the next 10 years. Under that arrangement at the end of the 10 years he will have in the force 5,000 men on a 10 years' service basis. Somebody in Committee upstairs referred to them as "shorties," and I do not know whether they will receive the nickname of "Gilmour's Shorties." At any rate, we are opposed to this new method of recruiting. One of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman in favour of short service recruitment was this: "There are 8,000 men at present in the Metropolitan Police Force who have not the remotest chance of promotion. Therefore, I am going to establish a force of 5,000 on the basis of 10 years' service to give the 8,000 a better chance." But is it not true that in every occupation and profession there is a given number who will never have a chance of promotion, however long they live? What about hon. Gentlemen supporting the Government, for instance. There are in this House about 500 Conservative Members. Not 80 of them have the remotest chance of promotion, however long they may sit in Parliament. I can see some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on those benches opposite now, who have tried hard to secure promotion and have failed —and they have put in more than 10 years' service in this House. Not only have they failed to secure promotion, but they have had to take back seats and the front seats have been given to others instead.
We are informed that at the end of the 10-year period these men will be paid a gratuity and their connection with the Metropolitan Police Force will then be terminated. I want the House to note that proposal because it is very important. Although statements have been made to that effect by the representatives of the Government, they have also been contradicted, and we are not clear even now as to the actual position in this respect. Under this Clause the law will stipulate that the maximum period of service for these men is not to exceed 10 years, but we have had hints from the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague that it would be possible in spite of this Clause, for some of these 10 years' service men to find their way into the Police College, and to become later members of the permanent force. That is the first point which requires to be cleared
up. If it is possible under this arrangement for any number of these men to gravitate into the permanent force, then what is the difference between the 10 years' service man and the regular member of the force, and what is the difference between the proposed system and the present system of a two-year probationary period?
The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is at present a probationary period of two years in all the police forces of the country. He also knows, I am sure, that when a young man is told at the end of the two years that he will never make a policeman, that he is neither mentally nor physically fit for the Police Force, there is always resentment in the mind of that young man against the police system. When it is a young man's ambition to become a policeman he resents being thrown out of the Police Force even if it is for the very genuine reasons I have indicated. I shall mention later what I think will be the attitude of mind of these 5,000 men in the future. We are told that a board is to be set up in order to find jobs for these men when they leave the force. We are told they are to be found jobs as caretakers and commissionaires. If the right hon. Gentleman is in the Government—as I hope (he may not be—in 10 years time, when the first batch of 500 men recruited under this Clause are about to be dismissed, he will probably find that they will have organised themselves into an association. They will presumably call themselves the "Discharged Policemen's Association." They will canvass and lobby, and I venture to say that the Government which is then in power will not dare to dismiss then. Public opinion will be too strong. I say that not for any party motive but because I think it is a serious situation to confront any Government. In that case a Labour Government would have to meet that awkward situation created by a Tory Government, and I do not want to see a Labour Government placed in that position.
There is something else to be said against this Clause. The Government think they are going to strengthen the Metropolitan Police Force by this 10 years' service arrangement. We heard an argument from the right hon. Gentleman upstairs on this subject which was
most extraordinary. I ought to mention incidentally that he then delivered one of the most eloquent speeches I have ever heard from him and he did so without losing his temper. The argument in favour of the Clause is that these 5,000 will be virile young men, physically fit, and that they will strengthen the Metropolitan Police Force. There is a feeling, not only on this side of the House, not only in London, but in the provinces too, among men who take an interest in police work, that to reduce this period of service to 10 years will demoralise instead of strengthening it. As was said on the last Clause, the whole of this Bill, and this Clause in particular, are designed on the pattern of a fighting service, with a short period of service as for the common soldier—seven, 10 or 12 years— but for the officer a Sandhurst training, and probably an appointment until he is too old to move about in his Army clothes.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that, whatever he may have said on this Bill, does not disclose the intention of those who have moved him to bring it before Parliament. We have been told very clearly that the intention is that these 5,000 men on 10 years' service shall do police work on the streets, and this is what will happen: These men in the main will be drawn from the working class, because special jobs are to be created for the university men, who will become officers. The officers will sit at the station, at the telephone, but the ordinary working man who will join the Police Force will do the rough and tumble work on the streets. That is the intention, and although the right hon. Gentleman has never said so, it is as clear as daylight, not only to Members of this party, but to Members of his own party as well.
When we were dealing with this point upstairs the right hon. Gentleman gave us the only argument that he has ever given in favour of this proposition, and I will ask the House to judge for itself the weight of an argument like this in favour of recruiting men on a 10 years' service: "From my point of view at the Home Office, one of the greatest essentials is to have somebody at Scotland Yard who can give me information, at short notice and in proper detail, of the actual state of crime and the methods
and results of dealing with it. Under the existing system I do not get that and cannot get the full particulars that I desire." Let me ask, in all seriousness, is there anything in Clause 4 that can help the right hon. Gentleman, by recruiting men for 10 years at the most, in securing this vast information from Scotland Yard? Nothing at all. As a matter of fact, he has destroyed his own argument, because he has said that it is the intention that these men should do work on the streets, on point duty, and all the rest of it, and consequently that argument for providing information from Scotland Yard to the Home Office and from the Home Office to Parliament will avail us little.
There must be a reason deeper than all that for introducing this Clause. Does the Metropolitan Police Force lack discipline? Is it corrupt? Is it inefficient? Is undetected crime on the increase? I said, when we dealt with this Bill on Second Reading, that the measurement of the efficiency of a Police Force ought to be found in the answer to the question, "Is crime increasing or decreasing?" But I was told that that was not a good test, and that what we ought to know was whether there was an increase in undetected crime, because the figures of the Commissioner are clear, that detected crime is decreasing in the Metropolis almost in the same ratio as the population of the Metropolis is increasing. Therefore, I think we are entitled to ask, Is undetected crime on the increase? The introduction of this block of 5,000 men on a 10 years' service will not avail the right hon. Gentleman one bit with regard to efficiency, or corruption, or discipline, or the treatment of undetected crime.
If the right hon. Gentleman has found, as I think he may have, that the Metropolitan Police Force is not up the standard at which he thinks it ought to be, his first duty should be to get an inquiry into the condition of the force instead of allowing a gentleman, however honourable and efficient he may be—I refer to the Commissioner who has only spent at the most about 2½ years as a policeman—to determine for this great city what shall be done with the force. We ought to know what is wrong with the Metropolitan Police Force, because if the force is all that we are told it is, the finest Police Force in Europe, why all this
change, why recruit men for the first time in a century on a 10 years' basis? There must be something wrong somewhere, because I cannot see these changes being brought about were it not for the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Metropolitan Police Force.
I do not want to make an attack upon the Commissioner of Police, but I think I am entitled to say this: I have here a copy of the King's Regulations of the Royal Air Force, in which he served with distinction, and I am certain that he regards every force over which he has control as falling into the same category of discipline as he has been accustomed to in the Air Force and the Army; and the whole of our trouble is that fact. If we had a civilian, a policeman, who had spent all his time in the Police Force at the head of the London force, instead of having a gentleman from the Army and the Air Force, we should never have heard of this Clause, and I am a little astonished that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should have been stampeded into this business at all. If I may say so without flattery, a gentleman from Scotland ought to have had more sense than to accept such a proposal. If I may, without being too harsh, let me just indicate to the House the type of mind and the idea of discipline that you get in the Fighting Services. This is from the King's Regulations of the Royal Air Force, to show how the minds of the gallant gentlemen work:
A Commanding Officer will, by advice and kindly intervention, endeavour to promote a good understanding and to prevent disputes. He will discountenance any disposition in his officers to gamble or to indulge in extravagant expenditure.
And this is the best of all:
He will check any tendency among his officers to practical jokes.
That is the world they live in, and the biggest practical joke that has ever been perpetrated upon Parliament is this Clause 4. The right hon. Gentleman says to himself, I must have a stream of men coming into the force, and passing out, with no opportunity of promotion to the higher grades. He complains, on the one hand, that there are 8,000 men in the present force without any opportunity of promotion, and in order to give an effective answer to that state of affairs, he recruits 5,000 men in 10 years and makes
it certain that they at any rate can never have a chance of promotion under any circumstances. This is one of the most illogical things I have ever come across, and the right hon. Gentleman and his friends behind him must not be offended if we are suspicious that what he is aiming at is that the officer class in the Metropolitan Police Force, and ultimately in the provincial police forces as well, shall come from the homes of the well-to-do families, and that the boys who do the rough and tumble work on the streets shall come from working class families. That is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and of those who have been advising him about this Bill. There will, of course, in this connection be a miniature Sandhurst, a training college. When the right hon. Gentleman was talking about these 5,000 men, he said something about buildings, and I think we are entitled to ask whether it is not his intention and that of his advisers to give us in the end a soft of Police College on the lines of the Army College, and homes for policemen on the lines of Army barracks.
A great deal of criticism has been levelled against the Commissioner of Police, and I will offer any criticism that I have to make in the most gentlemanly terms that I can command. I say that the House of Commons would never have been troubled with this Bill at all, and particularly Clause 4, were it not for the fact that a military gentleman has come to manage the Metropolitan Police Force. I want, if I can, to destroy the notion that men who have done well in other walks of life are of necessity competent to manage almost any business in the land. I have been told on good authority that one of the gravest mistakes that the railway companies in this country ever made was to put power into the hands of great economists, who knew nothing at all about the railway service. A great economist brought on to the directorate of a railway company at £10,000 a year has never been able to do anything for the railway companies that could not have been done by a railwayman who had graduated up from the bottom to the top. There is, after all, a psychology, a culture that belongs to the job, and if you move a man from one big job to another, it does not follow that he will be a success.
Could not the right hon. Gentleman have got practically all that he requires, if he does require young men in the Police Force, under the present probationary system? If he finds that a man joining the Police Force will not make an efficient policeman, he knows that he can dispense with his services in two years time. "Why should not that system be developed? Why should it not be enlarged over a longer period? In the end, that is what I think he will get. The right hon. Gentleman will know some of the other arguments employed against the 10 years' service men, one of which is this: Some writers to the newspapers have said that it is a very dangerous thing to allow a man to enter a police force, to know all the tricks of the trade, as it were, and then to throw him into civil life at the end of 10 years, because he will then employ all the tricks that he has learned for purposes other than those which are for the good of the community. The right hon. Gentleman would not accept a statement like that, but I want to draw his attention to one distinction. When a policeman is pensioned off in the ordinary way it is followed by the ordinary discipline, because he is still a policeman. When the short service men get their gratuity, however, there will be no means of bringing any discipline to bear upon them. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have regard to that important fact.
If the economic depression lasts until these men come out of their 10 years' service, no advisory board will be able to find them work. Where could it find work for men like this if they came out this year? I defy anybody to find them work when there are about 3,000,000 other people who cannot find jobs. When we say that to the right hon. Gentleman, he replies, "The system which we are now proposing works admirably in connection with the Air Force, and every young man coming out of that force from a short-term service can find a job in civilian life." He forgets, however, the fundamental difference that a young man who comes out of the Air Force is almost invariably a highly trained technician. When he comes out he finds in civilian life the extension of a civilian air force, and he is absorbed into that developing force. What have the 500 men who will come out of the short service Police
Force every year to look forward to but jobs as caretakers and commissionaires? The Government of the day will not be faced so much with the problem of finding them work; when the first 500 are due to leave the force, they will be faced with a political agitation against their dismissal. Those who represent the provinces have no title to speak on this Bill in the same way as Members from London divisions, except that what will happen in the next few years in the Metropolis will, we are certain, happen in Manchester, Liverpool and other towns. The pattern of the Metropolitan Police Force is generally copied in the provinces. I appeal in real earnest to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his attitude towards this Clause, because I am certain that this experiment is not worth the expenditure.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. STOURTON: It is with genuine regret that I find myself speaking in favour of the deletion of this Clause. I regret it because, apart from this Clause, I am a whole-hearted supporter of the Bill and, if I may say so without impertinence, I have the greatest admiration for the bold manner in which my right hon. Friend has tackled this thorny problem. I find myself at variance with him, however, when he stated on the Second Reading of the Bill:
I am confident that men who do well in this short-service scheme will have no difficulty in finding suitable employment."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1933; col. 953, Vol. 278.]
I venture to ask my Tight hon. Friend where he thinks the jobs are to be found for these hundreds of men as their short service term is completed? Anyone who has been in the fighting Services and has had experience in trying to find positions of trust for ex-non-commissioned officers such as are suitable for these men, knows the difficulty. To give weight to my argument I will tell the House what was said to me to-day when I was in touch with the Corps of Commissionaires. The authority in charge of this corps have informed me that undoubtedly these short service men will be in competition for jobs with their own men. The fact that there are thousands of men who desire to join the Corps of Commissionaires and are unable to do so shows that these short service men will have the greatest difficulty in finding suit-
able employment on the termination of their service. I am informed that the Corps of Commissionaires is about 4,800 strong, and 91 per cent. are in full employment. The other 9 per cent. have to rely on temporary work of one to two days a week only. About 2,000 men, or 40 per cent. of the total strength of the corps, are on the waiting list. These figures are significant and pertinent to the point that I am making.
My right hon. Friend also said that the short service members of the Metropolitan Police will be inspired to put in their best work because, unless they do so, they will not be qualified to obtain a good character which will obtain them work when they leave. Judging this point from the lowest possible basis, that is, the material basis, I would ask my right hon. Friend which type of man is likely to be induced to give the best work— the men who makes the Police Force a profession, who has a pension to look forward to, and is liable to forfeit it if his work is unsatisfactory, or the short term service man who, even if he completes his 10 years of service satisfactorily and has a good character, has a very limited chance of finding employment? Obviously the individual who makes the force his profession. There is also the important consideration whether short or long term service is likely to produce the better type of candidate. Clearly the man who prefers to serve for a long period will be the better type of individual to recruit for the force. I have consulted a high police authority outside the Metropolitan Force, and he expressed agreement with the views which I have endeavoured to put before the House. Any advantage that may be gained by the creation of this force from the fact that it will save £500,000 a year is outweighed by the consideration that with with the system of short service the Metropolitan Police Force is likely to deteriorate. It will also become a great social menace for these hundreds of short term service men to have to go out in the world without a job after having worked hard and obtained a good character. With their knowledge of up-to-date police methods these men may become very dangerous gentlemen to deal with. For these reasons, I am very doubtful about this Clause.

6.55 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: It is rather interesting that the two first speakers on this Amendment come from Lancashire, that is, from the provinces and not from London. We who oppose this Clause may look at it from a London point of view, but the two hon. Members who have spoken show that from the detached position of Lancashire there is some suspicion of the proposal in the Clause. It may be that provincial feeling is afraid that the same principle may be extended from London to the provinces. We had a long discussion on this principle in Committee and the same spirit was noticeable there. Conservative Member after Member got up and severely criticised the suggestion for a short service. It is true that it is based on a suggestion contained in the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Police, but there is a shrewd suspicion outside that the proposal is not inspired by any desire to increase the efficiency of the force, but with the desire to bring about economy. The proposal will mean a considerable saving in expenditure on the superannuation fund. I have a suspicion that that is behind this proposal.
I cannot see that any case can be made for it from the point of view of increasing the efficiency of the force. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill he emphasised that with the great increase in the number of the force, with the changed conditions, with the rapidity of movement caused by motor cars, and so on, there was a case for reorganisation. For that reason many Members voted for the Bill on Second Reading, thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had made out his case. Nothing, however, can be said in favour of the two Clauses which we have been discussing on the ground that they will increase the efficiency of the force. The strength of any police force lies in the fact that men make it a life service, and that on their efficiency and honesty depends the earning of their pension. A policeman always has in front of him the fact that when he has completed his 25 years he has earned his pension, and that any lapse from integrity or anything that brings him into conflict with the authorities will lose him that important asset in life. Short service does away with all that incentive towards efficiency. It will be a temporary job in which a man cannot get promotion. He will start as a
constable and remain as a constable. However capable, efficient and skilful he is at his job, however many people he apprehends, and however live a wire he may be, he can never hope to get beyond the rank of constable.
A quotation, which caused considerable stir at the time, was made of a number of points that the right hon. Gentleman made in the Committee stage, and I think that it is worth re-quoting. He is apparently inspired to support this proposal because he is not satisfied with the efficiency at the top. From the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman:
one of the greatest essentials is to have somebody at Scotland Yard who can give me the information at short notice, and in proper detail, of the actual state of crime, and of the methods and results of dealing with it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C,) 20th June, 1933; col. 68.]
How is the right hon. Gentleman to be helped to get that information and advice from headquarters by introducing this short-service system. On the contrary, I think that this changing of the personnel every 10 years would be essentially a weakness. Every 10 years there will be new entrants, men who give to police work only a temporary phase of their life. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to explain the significance of the remark to which I have referred. He should say whether he slipped it in by accident, for want of a stronger argument, or if there was something sinister behind the suggestion that a long-service force does not give him that organisation which supplies him with information, and keeps him in contact with crime. Is there anything sinister in that remark? The public are rather startled by it and wonder what it implies.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a great point that these men, when they pass out, will be able to get employment. I have had in London a very large and extensive experience of the difficulty in placing men passed out from the Army. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right when he says that already the kind of jobs for which these men are suitable— caretakers, office-minders and lift attendants—are already the subject of tremendous competition among ex-soldiers. Ex-soldiers of fine character, and with splendid Army papers, are in the labour market desiring jobs of that
kind. The same applies almost as much to ex-naval men with regard to unskilled jobs requiring good character and experience of discipline. I would question whether all the good organisations of the Police Force will find employment for these men.
A little later, I am going to suggest that there should be some elasticity. I should not object so much to this short-service proposal if the Secretary of State could have some discretion to allow men of proved capacity and ability to go on in the force, and to become long-service policemen under ordinary conditions. As I read the Memorandum, I take it that, willy-nilly, however efficient and capable these short-service men are, when they have exhausted their 10 years, out they will have to go on to the labour market. If the Clause stands as it does at present, I think it will mean that a lot of these men, after 10 years in a responsible position, will be thrown out on the labour market unskilled and untrained, except for any jobs of a routine character, and will have a distinct grievance against the State. It may be said that no man is compelled to join the Police Force; that he will know the conditions of his service, and that he will have himself to blame. But, in the present conditions of the labour market, men must take what they can get. There is severe competition in the Employment Exchanges. To take a job for even 10 years will be a great temptation.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to increase the efficiency of the force, I think he is starting at the wrong end. Of course nothing is beyond improvement, and, however good the reputation of the Metropolitan Police is, there is no doubt we can improve it. What he should do is to alter, or improve, the method of recruitment. The Commissioner of Police emphasises that very much in his report. He emphasises the absence of men who come from central and secondary schools, and the comparatively small percentage of men who have stayed at school until 16 or 17 years of age. Would not the right hon. Gentleman be wise, instead of introducing this new short-term recruitment, to improve the educational test and to give preferences to lads from central and secondary schools, and, if necessary, if he wants a younger force, to get them to join earlier in life? I
think the average time for joining is round about 27 or 28. He should let them start at 21, when they are full of youth and enthusiasm. Even if they do stay 25 years they will still be comparatively young men when the come to the time for earning their pension. The right hon. Gentleman should follow that line of advance rather than this reactionary proposal.
Is there any other force in this country, in the Empire, or in Europe, recruited on these lines? Are not all Police Forces based on long-service terms? Is not the reason for a long-service term being applied because of the danger of turning out on the labour market men who find it difficult to get jobs, and who know the entire Secrets of the police? It seems to me a very shortsighted policy, to say the least, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to make a stronger case before the House will be justified in giving him this Clause.

7.8 p.m.

Brigadier-General NATION: I have followed this Bill throughout all its stages, and at every stage there has been a discussion on this Clause which deals with short-service men. To my mind the subject divides itself into two parts— first, how is the service going to benefit by the short-service men; and, secondly, what inducement is there for the right type of young man to come into a career which lasts only for 10 years? Of course there is no doubt that 500 young men of the right stamp, in the flower of youth and full of energy and vigour, coming into a force must be of benefit to that force. If, however, we do not get the right type of man, the force must naturally deteriorate. If the men are not satisfied with the career open to them, we are more likely to get the down-and-out, and the man who cannot find any other kind of job—the man who is afraid of going into the fighting services, or who dislikes discipline, or the man who is on the borderline of crime. That type of man could well do infinite hurt to the magnificent force we already possess.
We know how difficult it is for the soldiers who have served their short term in the Army to get any kind of job afterwards. The man going into the Police Force will look at these soldiers, and will say to himself, "These men, at
any rate, had an opportunity of working at some kind of trade before the end of their Army service; they went into a vocational training centre to learn some kind of trade. If I go in for this short-term police, 10 years beat duty, what shall I know at the end, and what am I going to get? What is open to me? "Such a man will hesitate. I have followed the Bill carefully through all its stages, and I listened very carefully to the Minister's speech on the last day the Committee sat. What he said then has changed my mind to a certain extent with regard to this Clause. I will quote his own words:
If…there is any man in the short service who shows great aptitude, and who, on coming before the board for selection, can convince them that he is suitable for that particular line, he can be transferred to the college.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the board he proposes to set up will be in close touch with great business houses and employers of labour of all kinds throughout the country. He added:
a man will have an incentive to show a good record of service in his 10 years, and his chance of employment when he leaves will be in accordance with the terms of the report he receives when he leaves.
Later the right hon. Gentleman said:
It is, at any rate, sufficient to say that there is a reasonable hope that the board which we propose to set up will be able to find jobs for these men.
These words should encourage the right type of man to come in. It is because of these words, because of my supreme confidence in the judgment of the Commissioner, and my belief that he is out solely to produce a better force than we have at the present time, that I have no difficulty in supporting the retention of this Clause. I am fortified in this decision by the Minister's words:
I am conscious that this is a scheme which must be tested by experience. Of course if experience shows that it will break down, why, then, it will break down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C,) 20th June, 1933; cols. 69–71.]
I take these words to mean that this is not a Bill for all time. If, in the course of time, it does not produce the right stamp of man it is hoped for, the scheme will be revised. For these reasons, I feel more confident in giving the Government my support for this Clause.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I desire to support the Amendment. Up to the present moment I have not been convinced that any reasonable argument has been adduced for the recruitment of these men on a short-service system of 10 years. If there is in this Bill one Clause more than another which has caused a great deal of uneasiness and feeling it is this one. If there has been a certain amount of suspicion, it is in relation to Clause 4. The first argument put up by the right hon. Gentleman on this point was that unless we had a number of young men recruited on a short-service system some 7,000 or 8,000 men in the force would be left with no possible hope of promotion. I have never been able to understand that argument, because everyone must know that in a force of 20,000 men it is impossible for everyone to have promotion. There is just as much dignity in doing your job properly on the beat as in an office in Scotland Yard, and it is hardly fair to say to men who day after day are doing properly the job that lies to hand: "You are not much use; you must be replaced because up to now you have not got promotion."
Another argument which I have heard is that there has been no material alteration in the constitution of the force for the last 100 years. In my opinion, the constitution devised 100 years ago has stood the test of time remarkably well. It is true that 100 years ago the force did not attract educated men, but, in spite of all we have heard about the necessity for further education in the Police Force, I think the police as a body are better educated now than at any time in their history. Conditions of recruitment in the last few years have, as a matter of fact, tended to attract decent, well-educated men, of a class anxious to improve their education after they have joined. Then we are told it is necessary to have this short-service system in order to bring youth into the force, the suggestion being, I presume, that when a man gets to about 45 he is dead and done for and ought to be decently buried. Looking round this House I cannot understand that argument. If there is an occupation in which it can be shown that it is not youth that matters so much as the ex-
perience gained by long years of training it is the Police Force.
I altogether disagree with the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation) in his suggestion that the short-service system may attract a certain undesirable class of men. I see no reason at all, particularly in present economic circumstances, why it should not prove attractive to men. Men want work, and, even if they were told they would get the "sack" in five years' time, they would very likely say: "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." But we are looking at the question from the point of view of what is best for the force and for the community, and what we can best do to make this force, of which we are already so proud, even more efficient and more valuable than it is; and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he has yet to convince this side of the House, and I think a great many of his own supporters also, that the best way is the introduction of this short-term system. The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull had to admit that he had been impressed by what the Home Secretary had said and had rather changed his mind. That is a tribute to the very nice way in which the Home Secretary can handle awkward subjects, and I must congratulate him on his recent convert. I think, however, that the Home Secretary will agree that although he did suggest that any man who showed exceptional ability might be transferred to the police college he did not go farther than the word "might." He did make it quite clear that at the end of 10 years these men would be dispensed with; at any rate, he did not hold out any very great hope of any of them being retained.
Then we come to the point, which I think troubles the minds of many people, of what is to be done with the men at the end of 10 years. If they were recruited at the age of 21 or 23 they would come out of the service at 31 or 33 years of age. They will be men who have not had a training to fit them for ordinary commercial life. The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull spoke of what happens when men are discharged from the Army. I have some personal experience of that matter. Men who are due for discharge from the Army are given six or seven months' vocational training, as it is called, chiefly in the direction of
being taught how to cobble boots and shoes, and that sort of thing, but from the point of view of fitting them to compete in the labour market the whole business is more or less of a failure. In my opinion, people are just as sympathetic towards the discharged soldier as they are likely to be towards the discharged policeman, but, after all, one cannot make jobs. These men will be turned out of the Police Force when they are in the prime of life. During their 10 years they will in all probability have got married and may have two or three children. They will find themselves in the prime of life with no prospects of a job.
The right hon. Gentleman and his friends (may—they hope they may—be able to find them jobs as commissionaires. They talk fairly glibly of the interest which the big commercial houses will take in these men. I have had a great deal of experience of trying to find men jobs in my own trade, being in touch with the big employers in my own industry, but even I, with the position I hold, and the certain amount of power I have, find extreme difficulty in getting firms to take men. When it comes down to "brass tacks," the placing of men in jobs in big industrial houses depends almost entirely on whether the man is likely to be a paying proposition to them, in other words, whether his experience is worth the money they will have to pay him. We all know the experiences of the men who served during the War. I was present at a parade of the British Legion yesterday, and saw these men, wearing their medals, and who had been through hell, who had not had a job for the last two or three years, not because people would not willingly have employed them, not because people are hard-hearted, but simply because, with the best will in the world, they cannot find jobs for them if there are no jobs. And that is going to be the position in which men will find themselves when they are discharged from the Police Force. It is a very grave responsibility indeed.
I do not want to join with those who declare that possibly these men, if they are unable to find jobs, will fall into crime. If it comes to that, we are all of us potential criminals in some shape or form. But I do say that possibly the temptation will be there. I think we can
at least put it that there will be temptation. These men will have a knowledge of certain things which they learn in the course of their police duties, and there may be, and will be, I think, the temptation; but, still, the majority of men would I feel be strong enough—I hope they would—to resist it. However, the temptation would be there, and we still are left with the question, What is to be done with the men? Another point is that I cannot imagine that this system will operate very smoothly from the point of view of the working of the force itself. These short-service men will be working alongside men who have a different outlook altogether, who have been recruited for the full period of service, and can look forward to pensions. Suppose these 10-year men do the best they can, as I believe they will, suppose they put their heart and soul into the business, they will all the time have the feeling that they are doing precisely the same work as men beside them who are engaged for 25 years and have a, pension at the end of it, and surely, this feeling will, sooner or later, and I think sooner, create a good deal of bitterness and ultimately unrest. I am not at all sure that it may not prove to be true that, as has already been said, at the end of 10 years the public conscience will revolt against sending these men on to the streets and will declare that they ought to be kept on.
The right hon. Gentleman said in Committee: "Well, after all, if this thing fails we can abandon it. After all it is an experiment." Is it fair, is it humane, to experiment with the lives of our fellow creatures? Because it is an experiment with men's lives, and one which may end very disastrously for some of them, though at the moment they may be quite glad to see employment for 10 years ahead of them. Ten years is a long time, and a lot may happen. They may think that a miracle may occur, that a Labour Government may come into office, and they will say to themselves: "If a Labour Government come in they will see that we are not sacked and it will be all right, because the place the right hon. Gentleman now fills will know him no more. "But it is a serious matter, because we are playing with the lives of these men, and I think all hon. Members must feel concern over the spectacle of these men between 31 and 33 years of age being
thrown on the scrap heap, because that is what it amounts to. It is no good trying to gloss it over by expressing satisfaction, as the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull seems to be satisfied, with the smooth words of the right hon. Gentleman. Someone talked about the right hon. Gentleman wanting backbone. He has got enough backbone. If there is one Member of the Government who will stick to a thing letter by letter and clause by clause it is the right hon. Gentleman. If I could get him on the side of goodness I should be very pleased indeed, because he is a real good fellow—provided he were on the right side.
I believe that a very reasonable case can be made out for dropping this Clause. It is not necessary to the Bill, and to drop it would not make any difference to the principle of the Bill. There is no reason why the probationary period should not cover the whole of the case put by the right hon. Gentleman. Surely, all of us are of that opinion. I have had enough experience of men being engaged for a job, and I have never defended a man being retained if he is found unsuitable. A man has to prove himself suitable for the job. It is possible under the present Administration so to adjust the probationary period that the right hon. Gentleman can get the right class of men. He could get his young people without submitting them to this short-service system.
If you bring a man into the Police Force at 21 years of age and he does 25 years' service, he is only 46 at the end of that period. A good many of us think that that is an age at which a man is rather too young to be pensioned off. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not like to have been pensioned off at that age. I suggest that there is no need for this Clause. To drop it would remove one of the greatest stumbling-blocks to the proper working of the Bill. I am positive that to make comparison between what happens in the Royal Air Force under a similar scheme is wrong. There is no proper analogy. So far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, there is good reason for the short-service system. There are jobs for the men when they come out, and they are better qualified, in all probability, for getting a job than in the case of the Police Force which is a blind-alley occupation. We have pro-
tested over and over again against the injustice of blind-alley occupations for young people; yet here is the House of Commons about to perpetrate a blind-alley occupation upon a large scale, for comparatively young people at the age of 21 years. We are to take 10 years out of their lives and throw them on the scrap heap. We say "We shall probably be able to get you a job as a commissionaire or door-keeper." What a prospect for any decent, educated body of men. I am expressing my faith in the right hon. Gentleman when I say that I hope he will withdraw this Clause. In making this protest and putting up these arguments, we are actuated by motives quite as honest and sincere as those of the right hon. Gentleman. We want to make the Police Force one of which none of us need be ashamed. The difference of opinion is as to method, and we believe that the method chosen by the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. We make this protest and put on record our opinion in the hope that the day may come, even if the right hon. Gentleman gets this Clause, when we shall be able to reverse the position.

7.34 p.m.

Major MILLS: I propose to take rather a different line of country. I support whole-heartedly the proposals of the Government embodied in this Clause. To the hon. Gentleman for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) I should like to say that everybody believes that he spoke with the utmost sincerity and sympathy for the men who, he thinks, are to be put into a blind-alley occupation and then thrown on to the scrap heap. I do not agree with that point of vqiew, and I propose to refer to it later. I will say at once that we accept as sincere what was said by the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who I am sorry is not in his place, in winding up in Committee for the Opposition in his good-humoured way, said that the Home Secretary would not get the Clause if it were not for the loyalty of the Conservative Members who were going to vote for it although they disliked it. I got up in order to dispute that fact. It was one o'clock, and the hon. Gentleman who was in the Chair very wisely and very firmly looked at the blotting pad in front of him and put the question. That was the correct thing to do. Otherwise,
I should have told the hon. Member for Westhoughton that I entirely disagreed with him, and that I spoke as one who, when the Clause was originally introduced, was prepared to speak and vote against it, but, having had the advantage of a conversation with the Home Secretary and with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, I had become genuinely converted.

Mr. McGOVERN: Tell us what he told you.

Major MILLS: If the hon. Gentleman listens to me he may hear something. I learned that this is an experiment which is jolly well worth trying, and that we shall be wise to try it. Like any other experiment, if it is not a success, it can be dropped at any moment. I can understand the Home Secretary being anxious to try the experiment because he has had a report from the Commissioner of Police, a most able and distinguished man, who is proud of his Police Force and anxious to make it as efficient and happy as possible. The Commissioner thinks that he can do this by engaging a number of short-service men and giving greater chances of promotion to a larger proportion of long-service men. That seems to me to be a very reasonable proposal, and it is extremely unwise of the House of Commons, with that in view, to say to the Home Secretary: "Oh, not so fast. We do not agree. You may have had this report, and, although not many of us are experts on this subject, we disagree with the opinion of a man who has been thinking over the matter and studying it for a long time, even though he regards it as of the greatest possible importance." That would be a rather unwise action.
I do not regard this new police work as a blind-alley occupation. The men are to come out of the force probably at the age of 31 or 32. They will be in the prime of life, and they will be alert mentally and bodily. They will have this great advantage, which no hon. Member so far has touched upon, that they will have a bit of capital behind them with which they can start in business or can purchase training. I do not think that there would be any difficulty in placing them in employment. A good many of them might find employment in the other Police Forces in the country where they would be valuable. Even on the fringes
of the Police Force there must be many jobs for which they would be admirably fitted and which they could take without injustice to men serving in the force on a long-service engagement.
The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation) said he was rather afraid that we might get the down-and-outs. I do not think that we shall. There will be no necessity for the Commissioner to choose those people. because he will have his pick of plenty of young men who are not quite sure what they want to settle down to, and who may think that in the Metropolitan Police Force they will have good pay and, maybe, a little bit of adventure, till, in due course, they can make up their minds definitely what they want to do. The hon. Member for Westhoughton said he was afraid that a proportion of the short-service men would employ their knowledge to the detriment of the public. The short-service men will not thank him very warmly for the suggestion that they are going to work against the public. What information are they likely to have which they could employ if they went down in the world, or which they could sell to crooks? They will have no information which is not known to the most ordinary pickpockets, let alone to the aristocracy of the profession, the cat-burglars and the smash-and-grab raiders. There is nothing not known to those people already.
The Home Secretary has experience to draw upon. Everyone who has had anything to do with the Police Force—I have been a member of a Standing Joint Committee for 25 years—knows that not all the people who enter for long service qualify for their pension. A great many of them retire after a comparatively short service, for private reasons—perhaps an opening has come along—for reasons of health or even for disciplinary reasons. They may be required to leave. I am sure that the Home Secretary has on record facts as to the people who have left the Police Force, not only without pensions, but without gratuities, not having been in the, service long enough to earn them, and he must know whether they go down in the world and obtain unenviable notoriety by falling into the bad class. I do not believe that that is the case.
I should have regarded it as a great defect in the Bill if it had been necessary to take literally the sentence in the White Paper which says:
A short-service engagement will not be regarded as a stepping-stone to long service, and a constable once recruited on this basis will not be eligible for transfer to the other.
If this were absolutely literally translated, I should have thought that the public interest would suffer, because there must be, and there will undoubtedly be, many short-service men who will make most admirable constables, sergeants and officers for the rest of their lives. To say that no man is ever to be able to transfer from short service to long service would be a great mistake. In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman reassured me when he said that the short-service man would be able, via the college, to transfer to long service if he were of sufficient merit and could satisfy the examiners of the wisdom of so doing. I will not refer to the Home Secretary's actual words, because I have already taken up too much of the time of the House. The only part of the Clause which I now dislike is that consisting of the last two lines in Sub-section (1). The words are difficult to follow. Even the learned Solicitor-General would agree that they are not simple to translate. That is a small matter which can be put right in another place. I see no reason to condemn the Bill because of that, and therefore I commend the Clause to the support of the House.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: This is the first time that I have intervened in the Debates on this Bill, but I have been reading carefully the report of the Commissioner, and I am not satisfied. There are several points to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. In Appendix II of the White Paper, the reason given for the change is that:
There are about 8,000 constables, or nearly half the total number in this rank, who have lost all prospect of promotion, and have nothing to look forward to except their pensions. At the present time about 4,000 of these men have over 17 years' service, and before long, the average length of service of constables will be substantially greater than it is now.
Further, it states that there might be a lack of keenness owing to these men
having no chance of promotion, but it does not blame the constables for that. I should have thought that, if any change were required, a more definite statement would have been made as to lack of efficiency in the force, that the Home Secretary would have produced some grave causes for this change—for instance, that certain men were not doing their duty. I do not, however, find any such evidence. It is stated that certain things might happen unless younger and more virile men were brought in. Personally, I have hot noticed any lack of attention on the part of any police constable. Each one, whether he gets promotion or not, is prepared to carry on his duty, believing that the State will do the best that is possible for him. There is a pension for him at the end of his term, and he believes that, unless he does his duty, he may lose his pension rights, and accordingly he does all that he can in the service of the State.
If this Clause is carried, a period will come when a number of men will be discharged, and a promise is given that some of them will be found jobs. It is almost said that it will be the duty of the State to find them work. I put it to the House that we are getting rather too much of this kind of thing—that certain men who have done duty for the State, whether in the Army, the Navy or the police, are being given preference over others as regards employment. That is not the right way to approach the question. I do not think it is fair for the House of Commons to recruit a number of people and say to them that at the end of their term the State, although it cannot retain them in heir present employment, will take it upon itself to find them other work. In the first place, the men will look forward to that, and claim that they are entitled to it, and it is putting them in a favourable position as compared with the rest of the community. The question will be asked: "How is it that certain men can be given preference over others for jobs?" That is the impression that will be created in the mind of the community. The House will probably pass this Clause, and, in consequence of it, a number of men will be looking forward to that privilege from the State if they are not kept on. I think that that is entirely wrong. I think we should continue to recruit police constables as before, giving them the same chance of promotion as
everyone else, so that they will do their duty in the belief that promotion will come to the best men. Until we get from the men in the force themselves some complaint that they are not being treated fairly, or, on the other hand, some complaint from those in charge that the Police Force is not efficient, we have no right to adopt the course which is now proposed. It will be creating a special position for a certain number of men.
I think I can see what is behind it all. Those who are in charge of the House of Commons at the present time feel that they are not able at the moment to find sufficient jobs for their own particular class. In the Army and the Navy there are certain jobs for which a certain class of people are fitted, but there are not enough of such jobs, and they are setting out to create such positions in the Police Force. For the ordinary man there is not the same opportunity; he is to be recruited for a short term of service; but others, belonging to a privileged class, will be able to go to colleges, and will, therefore, have a better chance of getting these favoured positions. Of the 16,000 men, 5,000 will be short-term men, leaving about 11,000 for these other positions. These positions will be occupied by the favoured class, who will have better opportunities than are available at the moment. We object strongly on that point. We say that the ordinary man, the short-term man, ought to be given the same opportunity as this favoured class.
I trust that the Home Secretary will not lightly carry this Clause forward. I do not know what he has told the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills), but apparently some hon. Gentlemen belonging to the party opposite hold the same views on this matter as we do. Evidently, however, they have been talking to the Home Secretary, and he has been able to convince them as regards his point of view. I hope that to-night he will convince us in the same way. I hope he will be good enough to tell us exactly what he has told the hon. and gallant Member. I understand that in a private conversation he has been able to convince the hon. and gallant Member as to what he thinks ought to be done. I am not convinced yet. Speaking for ray party, I say that we want the best possible Police Force. We have, I
believe, the best possible Police Force in the world. I believe that the Metropolitan Police Force is the ideal Police Force, and wherever you go you will hear it praised. Until it can be proved that the force is not doing its duty properly, the House of Commons has no right to alter it in this drastic way. I hope we shall fight this Clause until we get from the Home Secretary a fuller explanation than we have had up to the present, and, when we go into the Division Lobby, I hope that some of those who are usually our opponents will help us to defeat the Clause.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: In the report of the Commissioner of Police for last year, there occurs this very significant phrase:
Everything depends on the type of man who joins the police.
If that be, as I believe it is, a fair statement, and not an over-statement, it seems to me that we Members of the House of Commons, when we are asked to consider a set of regulations to govern the recruiting of the Police Force, should consider as of primary importance the question whether those regulations will enable us to secure the best type of man available for the job. Approaching the problem from that point of view, I think that, if an advertisement were put out stating that a man was wanted for a job which would be permanent and would carry a pension at the end, and if another advertisement were put out stating that a man was wanted for a temporary job for a certain number of years, at the end of which he would be given a gratuity, it is evident that in the first case we should, on the whole, get a better type of applicant than in the second. It seems to me to be self-evident that the prospect of permanent employment and a pension must, over a large number of men, tend to attract a better type than a prospect merely of temporary employment with a gratuity at the end.
Therefore, if I am right in assuming that this is, or should be, the primary consideration with Members of the House, it seems to me that we are bound to object to the Clause which is now before us. Personally I think that the proposal to recruit members of the Police Force for a term of 10 years certain is a mistake; and I would point out that when I say "10 years certain" I am really
stating the case too favourably from the point of view of the Bill, because the Solicitor-General was at some pains in Committee to point out that the Government had so drafted this Clause that they might be able in future years, if it were considered wise to do so, to reduce for future entrants into the force the period of years from 10 to nine, or whatever seemed to be the best period. Therefore, when we speak of 10 years, we are really rather over-stating the possibilities of employment from the point of view of those to whom it is offered. I have been at considerable pains, as no doubt other Members of the House have, to try to ascertain what really is the big argument in favour of this short-term recruiting. I do not know whether I am stating the case unfairly from the point of view of the Government, but I have genuinely come to the conclusion that the real argument in support of this proposal is founded on the following statement in the report of the Commissioner for Police for last year:
There are at the present time about 8,400 constables who are already beyond the promotion zone and have little incentive to effort during their remaining years of service except their own sense of duty.
It has already been pointed out that that is a state of affairs in which the majority of people in most callings find themselves. Moreover, it would appear on the face of it that these 5,000 temporary police officers will be in the same position themselves, in that they will have, to take the words of the report:
little incentive to effort during their remaining years of service except their own sense of duty.
If we assume that the sense of duty is the same in both cases, then, in the case of the ordinary constable, there will be in addition the incentive of a pension, and in the case of the temporary officer the incentive of a gratuity. Of the two it seems to me that, judged by this standard, there will be slightly more incentive in the case of the permanent officer than in the case of the temporary man whom we are urged to put in his place, and, if I am right in assuming that that is the principal reason why this Clause has been inserted, it seems to me to be abundantly clear that there is no adequate justification for the proposal.
Personally I feel that, for the reasons I have given, the proposal to introduce these short-service men is a mistake. I would go further. Supposing that I am wrong, supposing that my judgment is at fault, and that the proposal to bring in short-service men is a good one, even so it seems to me that there was no need to make the proposal so rigid in character. I cannot see why it should have been necessary to exclude, in the case of these men, all hope of transfer to the permanent part of the force. I listened, I must confess, with astonishment to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation), who has consistently opposed this Clause in the earlier stages of the Bill. To-day he says that, having regard to what the Home Secretary said in Committee, he is now satisfied that we might agree to the Clause. I have read very carefully the Home Secretary's words which my hon. and gallant Friend referred to, and they do no more than hold out the very remote hope that in certain exceptional cases an opportunity may be given to these men at the end of their term of service, or before it, to go into the new Police College. I do not think it can be seriously urged that that prospect is anything like obvious or probable enough to affect the mind of a man who to-day is asked to join as one of these short-term constables. The Home Secretary also used these words:
We do not desire to hold out to those men the possibility that they shall be transferred to the long-term service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C,) 20th June, 1933, col. 71.]
That is very clear and very emphatic and it cuts away, as a thing apart from the rest of the Police Force, these short-service men, a fact which in itself I should have thought open to grave objection.
Then, to my mind, not only was it not necessary to exclude all hope of transfer to the permanent part of the force, but it also seems to me that it was not necessary completely to exclude these men from any share in or relationship with the Police Force after their term of temporary service is over. I should have thought it might at least be possible to make some provision for the building up of a police reserve, if we are to have these short-time men, and to give them a continued interest in the force, some system of registration and some small
annual emolument, for which a good deal might be said, so that in times of emergency or difficulty they would he there to fall back upon. But there is nothing of that sort in the Bill. If, as I believe will be the case, these recruits on the whole prove to be a poorer lot than they might otherwise be, the effect upon the Police Force is bound to be bad. If, as the Home Secretary believes, they prove to be a good lot, he is unnecessarily preventing himself from using the best of that good lot to strengthen the permanent branch of the force afterwards.
This is no slight matter. It is proposed to recruit in this way something like a quarter of the whole force. It has been argued, I believe correctly, that some similar system works well in the Air Force, but I think that argument was disposed of by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) when he pointed out that the value of the training that they get in the Air Force puts them on an altogether different plane. While I sympathise very much with the Home Secretary in the effort that he is making to adapt to changing conditions what we all feel is the finest Police Force in the world, still I urge that this would have been a better Bill if Clause 4 had been less rigidly drafted and better still if the Clause had not been in it at all.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. MCGOVERN: I intend to cast my vote against this Clause, as I do against every other Clause in the Bill, for very different reasons from those which have been advanced from most parts of the House. The criticism of the Clause has largely been as to what is to happen to these men after their 10 years' service. I am not so much concerned about that as I am about the reasons why they are being recruited. When hon. Members say that the Home Secretary has been stampeded into acceptance of the Clause, I do not think that they are doing him justice. I do hot know a great deal concerning the Home Secretary personally, nor do I desire to do so. I have never spoken to him in my life. I have been on nodding terms coming off the Midnight Scot at Euston and in the corridors of the House. I have heard people say he has that special trait which many Scotsmen have that, once he takes up an idea, he refuses to go into any other avenue than that line. That is not
in itself a bad thing. If a man has made up his mind by reason that a certain course must be pursued, if he steadfastly remains true and loyal to that point of view, he is to be admired and no one would condemn him for it. But, if a man adopts something and, after reason has been applied, refuses to change his mind, then he becomes, to use a gutter term, "pig-headed." In that respect he is to be condemned, and one has to be suspicious of his action. I heard the right hon. Gentleman on the public platform before I came into the House and I have seen him here, and I do not know exactly what particular part he fits into. I have heard people say he is the type of man who would enjoy, if he had the ability, putting you through an operation for appendicitis without giving chloroform and that he would smile all the time you were squirming in agony. I should not like to say that. Most people, when you come to deal with them personally, are very decent as individuals. It is when you get them as a class, and when you are interfering with their class interests, that difficulties begin to arise.
This is not an unnatural proposal as we find society to-day, I am going to analyse it from a purely class point of view. If I were in the position of the right hon. Gentleman and wanted to place all my cards on the table, I should be prepared to say that, with the development of society as we find it and the difficulties that are arising throughout the world, we see some years ahead a more difficult period arising, and we want to make preparations to deal with it. With the knowledge of what has taken place in other parts of the world, they are desirous of recruiting a number of temporary policemen, so that every year there shall flow from the force 500 men who can be appealed to at any given moment in any difficult situation that may arise. The hon. Member who has just spoken is the only one who has put his finger on the proper point. He condemned the Clause from the point of view that it did not establish a reserve force after these men have gone out of the service. But is he so simple as to imagine that there is no intention in time to come of establishing contact with them? You have 10 years to develop and establish it, and you may take it for certain that in less than 10 years there will be that connection, that desire to look after the social welfare of
the men who move out of the force, taking a friendly class interest in their vocations in after years so that they can be used for the purposes which are behind the intention of the Bill, for the purpose, if you like, of keeping law and order and resisting the encroachments of an enraged working class as time goes on.
That is what I see in the Bill. I am not worried about what is going to happen to the men after 10 years, and I am not going to treat the Measure as the hon. Member for Westhoughton did when he said this was the greatest joke that had ever been before the House. I think it is one of the most serious things from a working class point of view that have been before the House. It is the development of a Fascist organisation which will be used against the common people in their struggle for power in future. When the right hon. Gentleman refuses to place his cards on the table, it is because he has that mental reservation which will not allow him to state the class purpose for which this army is to be used in the future. Therefore, I do not treat it as a joke, and I am not concerned about what is going to happen to the men after 10 years, because I believe ample provision will be made for them by those who recognise that they have to keep their contacts and their connections with the men on whom they are dependent to defend them. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) said there was growing up in society a desire to safeguard, from an economic point of view, those in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Police Force, and probably the volunteer services. While it might be wrong from his point of view, it is absolutely right from the point of view of those who are defending the interests of the ruling classes in this country, because between them and the overthrow of the present order of society stand all these forces whom they would seek to get on their side by petty bribes of various kinds. Therefore, going along that line in reference to the Police Force is not a joke, or a thing into which the right hon. Gentleman has been stampeded. It is a logical and intelligent point of view on the part of those who are running the affairs of this country. They want a set of trained men. They want the best brains to be sent to the college. They
want these people to be of their particular class interest and to be depended upon to give orders to a rank and file who will carry out the duties allotted to them in an intelligent manner.
The men are to be there for 10 years. The right hon. Gentleman says that they will go out after 10 years' service. If I belonged to the ruling classes, I should be seriously perturbed with that point of view, because the men who came in for a temporary period of 10 years would be marking the calendar and marking time. They would recognise that at the end of 10 years they would as young men of 30 or 32 years of age have to walk out of a permanent situation into a bitterly cold world to stand possibly in the Employment Exchanges and public assistance queues. But there would be a danger that during the 10 years, and especially during the latter period of the time, a man would be developing his contacts in order to safeguard the future. He would be getting into touch with the racecourse owners, the greyhound owners, the publicans, the clubs and the bookmakers, and in every possible way he would be developing his contacts in order to secure a situation after he had moved out of a State situation. There might grow up in this country a greater amount of corruption and graft in the Police Force than has been the case in any period in history. I am sure that if Mrs. Meyrick were alive she would have been delighted to employ a number of these men after they left the Police Force. Every person connected with semi-legal trading concerns would be delighted to employ them. We should have growing up in this country a force more corrupt and influenced by graft than anything outside America at the present moment if we were to believe that that was the intention of the Government towards those men after 10 years.
I do not want it to be inferred or suggested that I believe that the average policeman in this country is any more dishonest or criminal in his intentions than any Member of Parliament or other person outside. Many an honest heart beats below a coat of blue. I believe that if one were to say, "Here you are; a 10 years' situation," a man would reply, "Very good, that safeguards me for 10 years." A man may be taken on for an ordinary job for three weeks, or be told
that it is a temporary job, but he always lives in the hope that it will turn into a permanent job and therefore gives decent and good service, because he wants to impress those whom he is serving with the idea that they should continue him in their service. That sort of thing gets the best out of a large section of mankind to-day. But in view of the undoubted knowledge that at the end of 10 years a man would have to go out of the Police Force there would be a tendency to make good by doing bad. That tendency would grow in this country. I do not believe that that is the intention of the Government, but that their intentions are behind the picture altogether.
An hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was opposed to the Clause, stated that he had seen the right hon. Gentleman privately and that he had convinced him of the necessity of the retention of the Clause. From my point of view, I could not be convinced that this Clause of the Bill is right, and I do not intend to support any part of it, no matter what assurances the right hon. Gentleman may give. If he has satisfied the doubts of certain hon. Members who were opposed to the Clause, he ought to give to the House the arguments and reasons which we were led to believe he gave to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman could give his reasons privately, we expect him to tell us publicly. I admit, if you have people who are inclined to kick over the party traces, that the better method is to send for them and discuss matters privately and reason with them rather than attempt to apply the big stick, as political parties very often do. The inference is not that the right hon. Gentleman used the big stick, but that he applied reason and convinced the hon. and gallant Member that the Clause was good and was not the bad thing which he formerly thought it to be. I confess that I am not altogether in sympathy with the outlook which recommends Sandhurst to the officer and the dirty work for the rank and filer. I do not regard every person "who does the rank and file work as doing the dirty work. I regard many of the rank and filers as doing essential, honest and honourable work in any sphere of activity. Everybody cannot be a general. Many of those who are generals ought not to be generals, and many who are privates
ought to be generals. This is a fact which we are all prepared to admit.
If it is intended to develop the temporary men on the basis suggested, and not intended to make provision for them later, I believe that you will have to look forward to corruption and graft of the kind I have mentioned taking place among men who know that they are to be turned out into a difficult world at the end of 10 years. I believe that this is a class Bill put forward on class lines, with the real reason not stated. During the declining period of capitalism, capitalism is taking steps in order to provide for the future, both against the encroachments of democracy and the desires of the working classes, who do not feel that they are going to get justice in this world within the ambit of the present system and are preparing to overthrow that system, either by constitutional or unconstitutional means. The right hon. Gentleman is the spokesman of the ruling class, and he comes to this House with this Bill and seeks to make provision for temporary men and to create the necessary reserves so that at a time of difficulty they may be brought in and used against the working classes, when the workers are seeking to bring about a really civilised and humane world. I look upon the whole of the Bill as a purely class instrument for the protection of the landlords, the protection of the bankers, the protection of the money changers and the protection of every section of people who are taking the blood out of the common people, protecting them and giving them security at the expense of the people. You are going to bribe them with jobs and promise them greater security than the working class, the unemployed, the poverty-stricken, in order that they may be on your side when the class conflict takes place, as it will undoubtedly take place, in order to remove the ruling class out of the seats of power and to put the working class in the seats of power.

8.27 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps I may be permitted to intervene at this stage. I am in some doubt as to the kind of character I represent, but I should like to say that if I have been fortunate enough in conversation to convert the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills) I should
like to put before the House exactly the same arguments that I used in his case. I am aware, and everyone must recognise, that this is a new proposal in the constitution and administration of the Metropolitan Police. I am equally conscious of the fact that hon. Members on all sides of the House have looked at these proposals for short service with some doubt. What has moved the Government in this matter has been a review of the circum-stances in which they find the Metropolitan Police. This great force of some 20,000 men has carried on its duties, in spite of changing circumstances and in spite of modern methods, with very great ability, but it has failed in certain aspects of its work and because of that fact those who are responsible for the present and future administration of the force consider that the proposed changes are required.
Hon. Members may ask what are the grounds for these proposals. They are these, that there has been an increase of certain classes of crime in the Metropolis. As has been pointed out in the report, it is not so much in the major crimes such as murder, which receive very often a great measure of publicity in the Press, but in such crimes as housebreaking, smash and grab and that sort of offences that there has been an increase. While we have been fortunate in having, owing to the expansion of the Metropolitan Police Force during recent times, a considerable number of young men coming into the force, the fact remains that the indication for the future shows that the pendulum is likely to swing the other way. You have in the force a body of men of something like 8,000 strong who have reached a stage in which they have no further hope of promotion and, while I am not saying that they do not do then-best in the great majority of cases, they are reaching an age when, from the very fact of that age, they are not so capable and so agile in performing some of their duties.
Let me disabuse the minds of hon. Members who may think that by this proposal in bringing in by stages over a period of time something like 5,000 short service men, we are not going to have a great number of long service men in the force. The facts are quite to the contrary. I think I am right in saying that there will be something like 12,000
men of long service in the force, some 5,000 of whom will have more than 10 years' service to their credit. When one looks at the duties which a large proportion of the force has to perform it is perfectly clear that their duty is confined to beat duty, patrol day by day week by week, with little hope of variation and with little chance of any kind of thing to create an interest. It is because we have a big proportion of men over a certain age who are carrying on mere patrol duty that we desire to make the change. What will be the effect upon the force? One of the greatest criticisms of the Metropolitan Force is the lack of the possibility of promotion for the man who is there making it his life service. If there is one thing which has caused us to adopt the short service system it is the fact that by doing so we can improve materially the possibilities of promotion for the long service members of the force. Clearly, it is to the advantage of those who remain on long service that their chances of promotion are going to be materially improved.
I have heard it said that we shall not get the right class of men, but there are hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), who think otherwise; but it will be tested by experience, and, as the House knows, we are not going to recruit men of ill-repute. Quite the contrary. In my judgment we shall get the men. They will come in knowing perfectly well the exact terms upon which they are recruited. Our present intention is to have them on a 10 years' service. They will, of course, serve a short term on probation, during which they will be tested, and as I have already said the Bill is so drafted that if you find after the first two or three years men of outstanding ability, who can convince the Selection Board that they are suited and can pass the necessary tests and examinations, which are not always oral, they will be eligible to go to the college. There is nothing to prevent it; and I am satisfied that if such men come in they can be so selected, and will be so selected.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman on this point. Clause 4 says:
It shall be lawful for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to appoint persons to serve as constables in the Metropolitan Police Force for a fixed period of service, not exceeding 10 years.
We cannot understand why the Bill says that, and why the right hon. Gentleman, in the speech he is now making, should lead us to believe that it is possible for the Commissioner of Police and the Secretary of State to pick and choose any of these men to serve for the longer period.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The man when he is recruited will be informed of the terms of his recruitment, that is 10 years. But there is nothing in the Bill to prevent his selection, with the man's consent, not against his will, to be taken out before the Selection Board and go into the college. I am certain on that point.

Mr. DAVIES: Will he be told that when he is recruited, or simply told on recruitment that it is for a period of service not exceeding 10 years but that after he has proved himself worthy of being a policeman he will be eligible to go into the college and into the permanent force?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The actual terms of his recruitment will be communicated to the individual. I have already said that it is not desired that these men, when they are recruited on the 10 years' service, should think that they can be transferred to the longer service. That is clear; and they must understand it and realise it. But, as I have said, there is nothing whatever to prevent a man who distinguishes himself or who, on the recommendation of a senior officer, comes to the notice of the Commissioner, or makes an application himself or is invited by the officer concerned to make an application, going before the Selection Board and then going to the college.

Mr. TINKER: The short term Clause, I take it, is for the purpose of getting a number of men who will be eligible for promotion. What number, or what proportion of the number, will be eligible? If there are 2,000 men there must be a number who will be eligible for the college?

Mr. LOGAN: Are we to understand that the contract is to be broken? Power is to be in the hands of the Commissioner to appoint any man he considers has special ability.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Quite definitely the contract which the man enters into will be read to him; and it will not be broken
except with his consent. Let me add that it will be a very small proportion of short-service men who could in any case be given this opportunity, very few indeed, because the whole policy of this change is to have a number of short service men available in the force—

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must remind hon. Members that we are now in the House and not in Committee.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Let me repeat once again. The short service men will be recruited for 10 years. If at any time it is decided by the Commissioner or the Government that nine years shall be the period the man will know when he takes his office the exact terms upon which he is recruited. There can be no question of breaking the contract on the part of the authorities. The man will carry on for that period. It is of the essence of the scheme for the benefit of promotion in the permanent part of the force that we should not hold out hopes to the short-term men of being transferred to the longer service. The question then arises, what is going to be the outlook for these men on short service? It is an outlook of certain and sure employment at good remuneration for the period for which they engage. It is followed at an age when they can go into the competitive market with the possibility perhaps of being transferred to some other Police Force, or being found an opportunity of getting employment in the outer world by the Board. We will take care that the Board is constituted on a wide enough basis and so selected that it will be in touch with great enterprises throughout the country, acting on exactly the same basis as those bodies which act for other services. They will, in our judgment, be able to deal with this problem.
These men will go out at the end of their period with a gratuity which will amount roughly speaking to about £180. At any rate, it will be an incentive to good behaviour while they are in the force, for upon their record when they go out will depend the possibility and readiness with which those outside will give them employment. I have said before that our desire is that these men shall be given all the information on recruitment,
and while they are in the service they will be given all the information which the institutions of the Police Force can place at their disposal. When they go they will have not only the immediate interest of the Government and the possibility of employment in some Government service, but every effort will be made to find employment for them outside. It is on those grounds that this proposal is made.
There is nothing to hide in this matter. In our judgment it is essential that we should have a larger proportion of young and active men, and that is of necessity the case when you are dealing with the kind of duties which fall to the modern policeman. I am conscious of the good effect of the long-service policemen moving in the areas which they know and dealing with the people whom they know. Only a proportion of the whole force will consist of this young section. It is, of course, true that there are men who go out of the force to-day after having served a short time. When I hear hon. Members suggest that these short-service men will be open to grave temptations and to dereliction of duty, and that when they leave the force they will get into touch with those who are contrary to discipline, I ask hon. Members who make these glib statements what has been the record of the men who, having served a short time in the force, have gone out into the world? I assert most definitely that the record has not been a bad one as regards conduct and character. There have been all sorts of things attributed to the Government, but this change has been made for the sole purpose of having a larger proportion of young and active men in the force to carry out duties which of necessity demand youth, energy and enterprise.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: We have listened to an amazing speech from the Home Secretary. Such a mass of inconsistencies I have rarely heard in this House. I was a Member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill. The proposal in this Clause was a very unpopular proposal on the Second Reading of the Bill, and it was more unpopular during the Committee stage. I think I am correct in saying that practically the whole of the Members of the House in every party
were opposed to the proposal when we began our discussion in Committee. We were not then informed of the position that has been stated to-night. as to the possibilities of these 10 years men. As a result the Government came very near defeat in Committee. As a matter of fact the vote was 11 to eight for the important part of this Clause which states that the period of service shall be for a period not exceeding 10 years. We were told in Committee that the men were to be recruited for that particular period, and that there was to be no opportunity for them beyond the period of 10 years. There was to be no question of selection in the first 10 years. In Committee nothing whatever was said by the Home Secretary as to the opportunities that would be given to some of these men, in the matter of selection, during their period of service. It was made quite clear and definite that the Government were going to recruit a body of men absolutely different from those who have been recruited in the Metropolitan Police before.
There are something like 20,000 men in the force. It is by no means a force of aged pensioners. The average age is 34, as was stated by the Home Secretary in answer to a question the other day. I believe it is stated in the Commissioner's Report that not more than 3 per cent. of those 20,000 men were absent last year through ill-health or any physical defect. I wonder where you will find 20,000 men in any industry where the absentee percentage is so low? It is a remarkable record for the Metropolitan Police, its youthful-ness, its standard of health and its fitness to carry out its duties. The men to be recruited under this Clause are not to be given a full term of service; they are not to have an opportunity of serving 25 or 30 years for a pension. There is to be no guarantee of a pension. They are to have the opportunity, if they are satisfactory, of continuing for a period not exceeding 10 years.
Now the Home Secretary has stretched the Clause and the Bill. I ask the Solicitor-General to show clearly where it is provided in the Clause that these men can be selected for continuance in the permanent force so as to qualify for a pension. If that is the position, what is the reason for the 10 years at all? You are not likely to get the best of men. Much is said about incentive. There is no incentive here for men, if they know
that they are to finish their police career at the end of 10 years. There is no certainty that any employer or any Government Department will find work for them at the end of 10 years. I am not one who would charge any man with dishonesty, or believe that he is certain to become a criminal. I have not the least doubt that the great majority of these young men, and practically the whole of them, will come from good homes, and will be as reliable as most of us. But there is the position, that there is no guarantee for these men. They will have opportunities of being on the streets. That is to be their work. They will go out of the force with the possibility of that happening to them which has happened to millions in other industries who have been put out of work for some time. There is the possibility of their becoming criminals. That is where we make the suggestion. Men in such circumstances have had every opportunity to learn how easy it is to be criminal, and if they are then prevented from earning their livelihood in a decent occupation there are temptations such as we think ought to be removed.
It has been said by the Home Secretary that there are 8,000 men in the Metropolitan Police Force who are not likely to gain promotion. What are the numbers out of the 20,000 who do secure promotion in a year? Have the whole of the other thousands an opportunity for promotion? If not, what is there in the argument regarding promotion? Why make so much of the point that there are 8,000 who are not eligible for promotion? While the average age is 34 I recognise that many of the men are considerably above 34, and I suppose it is possible to adduce the argument that they are not seeking promotion. But I think the Government have a very weak case in this matter. I am sure that they have been ill-advised by a man who knows nothing whatever about the Police Force but who is "running" the Home Secretary on this question, just as on the matter discussed on the previous Clause. From my point of view, and from the point of view of a great many Members of all parties, this proposal is a mistake. We know that there are hundreds of Members who will vote upon this and who have never heard the discussions on this Bill. We know that the Government will get this Clause when the Division is taken. But I venture to say that
every one of those who have listened to or taken part in the discussions is satisfied that this is a proposal which should never have been brought before the House and should never be carried by the House. This is one of the things in connection with this Bill which is going to destroy efficiency and harmony and that confidence which most people have in this wonderful Police Force, a force which has been described as the best in the world.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: As the representative of a London constituency, I oppose this Clause in spite of the reasons advanced by the Home Secretary in favour of the official view. I have only been able to find one of those reasons which could be accepted as a ground for making the proposed change, and even that reason, if argued properly, turns out to be a reason for not including this Clause in the Bill. The Home Secretary said, "We want 5,000 more young men in the force, to be recruited at the rate of 500 a year." What are these young men to do? They are to be put on patrol duty. They are to catch the "smash and grab" raider. No matter what beat he is on the young policeman is to rush out and catch the "smash and grab" raider and thus serve the purpose intended by the promoters of this Bill. That appears to me to be a very flimsy reason for proposing a change of this character. For my own part, I cannot understand why patrol duty should be regarded as being so very monotonous as some speakers would make it out to be. I believe that the average policeman on patrol duty is engaged on work which is not particularly monotonous in character. He has to be trained so that he may know how to tackle all manner of cases which are likely to arise in the course of that duty. The longer he is engaged upon it the more experienced and consequently the more useful he becomes. I do not think it can be held that the work of a policeman on patrol duty is any more monotonous than the work of the ordinary craftsman who is engaged in the same occupation day in and day out. No one suggests that the craftsman becomes any less efficient with experience. On the contrary, everybody knows that the more experience he gets the more efficient he becomes, and that argument applies with even more force to the case of the policeman on patrol duty.
There are three sections of people who have to be considered when we are discussing this subject. First, there is the ordinary policeman who does not get promoted but who is as valuable an asset to the force as any man who does get promotion. He is the basis of the force. He is the substantial element upon which the whole regulation of law and order is based. The fact that he has not got promotion does not mean that he is in any way a worse man than the man who has got promotion. It frequently happens that a man on ordinary beat duty is more efficient than a man who has got promotion. It is not humanly possible to decide rightly in every case on those who are to be promoted. The stability of a force depends not so much on the men who receive promotion, as on the main body of the police who, in the case of the Metropolitan Force, have proved themselves particularly efficient. Then, there is the officer class. That class hitherto has had the opportunity of passing through the ranks, of getting to understand the duties which the rank-and-file perform and ultimately of reaching the higher positions in the force with the knowledge of the duties performed by every grade under them.
Then what of the public? Do not they look to the average policeman on beat duty as their protector? What benefit will be gained from their point of view by introducing 500 new men into the force every year? Experts say that a man has to pass through a probationary period of something like five years before he gets on the fringe of understanding the full duties of a policeman. It is said that nine years' experience are required before a policeman reaches his peak value in service to the community. Under this proposal, these men will be discharged from the force a year or two after reaching the peak of their usefulness according to that calculation. I respectfully suggest that it is not fair to the community, to the officers or to the members of the force that a proportion of the men should be taken away from police duties just at a time when they are likely to become most valuable.
It is not correct to assume that this proposal is going to stop here. I can well understand why so many provincial Members have spoken on this subject.
It is obvious that this Clause is merely driving in the thin end of the wedge. There is no difference, in the main, between the service which the police have to render in London and the service which has to be rendered by the police ill other places. There are "smash and grab raids" elsewhere than in London, and the Metropolitan area in establishing this type of service will merely commence something which will ultimately be applied in the provinces also. At least I think that that is intended, and that is why this matter has received considerable attention throughout the length and breadth of the country and that is why this proposal is being opposed by many people who have had experience in connection with important police services.
Within my own knowledge, in Cardiff there is an excellent Police Force, controlled by a man who has himself had experience of a very wide nature in the force and has reached the position of Chief Constable after having had that experience and knowing his duties thoroughly. That man, whose word has been taken on grave occasions when questions of police control have been at issue, says that the importance of a police force consists in the knowledge that the force itself has of the community with which it is dealing and the knowledge which the community has of its police force. By that method he was able to prevent strikes and troubles when big labour issues were involved. The community responded to the understanding of the police towards them, and in consequence of that understanding matters were smoothed out. Would that have been possible if young men without experience had been brought in, who had not the knowledge of the locality and of the people with whom they had to deal? That would have acted to the detriment, not to the advantage, of the position.
Is it not right to say that if you take a man of 21 and put him into a force for 10 years, giving him no incentive other than a gratuity of £180, which he may very well spend before he gets another job, that man is not receiving fair treatment? Even against their own wishes young men may be compelled by the force of circumstances prevailing at the time to take on this job, but when they have been in it some years they are bound to realise the difficulties in which they have placed
themselves, and that either they must spend some of their time in preparing themselves for the future—I do not, of course, mean that in the evil sense of the term—or they must do the best they can for the force and consequently find themselves, at the end of 10 years, incapable of doing anything other than some of those jobs which have been referred to. In my view that is not reasonable. The fact that there is no pension forthcoming at the end of their service is not an incentive to them, and the gratuity itself will not be a sufficient inducement to men of the right type to join the force, unless they are compelled to do so by force of circumstances, and if they are so compelled, it is not fair to them.
Am I to understand—this is a matter upon which I should like to be clear— that the new men who are coming in will receive the ordinary compensations which accrue under the Police Pensions Act, and will receive the same treatment in respect to injuries which they may sustain in the course of their duties? It is a matter of considerable importance to know exactly where we stand in this connection. I do not think we have been given a satisfactory reply to the numerous questions which have been raised, nor a satisfactory reason for accepting this Clause. I do not agree entirely with the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), who has brought into this scheme the possibility of the sinister motives which, unfortunately, he invariably sees in nearly every scheme that is brought forward. I am not prepared to accept those sinister motives in this matter. I hope and believe there are no such motives behind the Bill, but I think it is a misguided Bill, and that those who have promoted it have not realised the grave considerations which should have been regarded at the time when the various stipulations were put into the Bill.
I believe they have not realised, for example, that when you are dealing with 5,000 men and that you will have some 8,000 men doing similar jobs, but with the prospect of promotion and pensions, the 5,000 men who are with them are not going to feel comfortable in those surroundings, nor for that matter will the 8,000 men themselves feel comfortable. I think it would be wise if, in view of the considerable doubt which prevails throughout the country with regard to
this Clause in particular, even at this eleventh hour the Clause were withdrawn and we were given the opportunity of discussing the remainder of the Bill at a later stage. I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will realise that this is an important matter. It is not being regarded lightly, but with considerable gravity, by people not only in London, but outside as well, and the right hon. Gentleman would earn the gratitude of the majority of people in this country if he would withdraw this Clause.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: Personally, I view the police as coming from working-class families, and whether these men are in or out of the Police Force, it would not influence my desire to do that which I consider to be my best to aid them where any aid is needed. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) does not think it necessary to worry about the conditions of these short-service men, I am concerned about them, as well as about the long-service men, when they come out of the force. I am particularly concerned about the short-service men, because the long-service men have the opportunity—and in a great number of cases they avail themselves of it—of continuing their service sufficiently long to get a pension, and consequently they do not need the same consideration as the short-service men will need.
The short-service men are a new class, and we have as Members of Parliament, and particularly if we represent, as I do, the working-class, to give some consideration to the conditions that will prevail as a result of the institution of this special class in the Metropolitan Police Force. The short-service man, the, Home Secretary tells us, will be well looked after. He will not only be trained, but he will have opportunities for education and indeed extra opportunities for education that the average man has not got. In addition to that, when he leaves the service, the Home Secretary tells us, he will get a gratuity of £180. Therefore, the Home Secretary says, he is reasonably well provided for. I do not take that view. I remember what happened when the men came out of the services after the War. As chairman of a War Pensions Committee, and, as chairman of the Prince of Wales' Fund which pre-
ceded the War Pensions Committee, I remember hundreds of cases of men who came out with gratuities, many of them larger than the gratuity promised in this new Police Force. It did not serve them very well. The conditions of their service while they were in the forces, and the fact that they were free from civilian and industrial life, unfitted them to enter into competition with those who had remained in industrial life during the War.
Men who will be taken away from association with industrial life for 10 years will be utterly unfitted for the competition that will no doubt exist then, as it does now, to obtain jobs. The £180 will be of little value to them. Some of them before they enter the Police Force will be insured for unemployment and they will lose their insurance rights on entering the force. When they come out they will have no unemployment pay, having lost the opportunity for qualifying for it, and they will have to commence all over again as if they were young boys entering industry. I suggest that in view of that loss alone, the £180 will be of little value to them. The Home Secretary does not think that there will be any temptation for these young men turned on to the industrial scrap heap, as many of them will be, in spite of all the promises that will be made to them. What of the promises that were made to the ex-service men during the War? The promise was made that when they came out of the Army they would enjoy a condition of things different from the conditions that existed before, and that there would be no more poverty and no more selling boot laces in the gutter. What value have those promises, made in the recruiting days, been to those men? If the young men going into the short-service Police Force think that the right hon. Gentleman's promise will be of any value to them after they have been in the force for 10 years they will have a very rude awakening.
The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation) referred to the possibility of any of these young men using the information they get when in the Police Force after they come out for any criminal or other wrongful purpose, and he said that there is no information that they can get that would be of any use to them.

Brigadier-General NATION indicated dissent.

Mr. McENTEE: I took the hon. and gallant Gentleman's words down, and he said that they would have no information that they could use to their advantage after they left the force. I do not think that misinterprets the hon. and gallant Gentleman's words. If that be so, what is the meaning of the restrictions which are placed on a member of the Police Force after he leaves the force and obtains a pension? There are a number of reasons for which a pension can be taken away from a man. One of them is for making use of his former employment in the police in a discreditable or improper manner. Another is for supplying information which he gained in the course of his occupation as a policeman. If the Regulations lay that down, it is obvious that the information could be of value; and I suggest that if the pensioned policeman could use it to his advantage, it is possible that the gratuity policeman of the future would also be able to use it.
These short-service men are to be restricted when in the force in many ways in which the average policeman is not restricted. They are not to have federation rights. The Home Secretary said that the federation would function in the same way as in the past, but when he got irritated, as he did towards the end of the three speeches that he made in the Debate on Clause 3, he rather gave the game away, because he said that meetings would not be permitted except those that the chiefs of the police thought ought to be held. He made a special reference to the Albert Hall meeting, and said that such a meeting would not be permitted in future. I would like to remind him that I was there and "was one of the speakers. I was invited to be present by the police, and perhaps that may be a reason why the right hon. Gentleman does not want such meetings to be held again. I would remind him, however, that there was a Noble Lord of the Conservative party, a Member of the other House, who spoke on the same platform, besides two Conservative Members of this House. There were, too, a Liberal, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). That meeting was sanctioned by the heads of the police, and, I pre-
sume, by the right hon. Gentleman himself, because he took no steps to prevent it being held, and I do not know any reason why it should not have been held.
This training for a short period of 10 years will unfit these men for ordinary civilian life, and it will hamper the Police Force too. I am not one of those who are critical of the Police Force or who care little or nothing about what happens to the policeman after he leaves the force and returns to civil life. I have the greatest regard for the police because of my own personal association with the Metropolitan Force. I do not want that to be misunderstood. It is true that on one occasion I was under arrest, and, as I have told the House before, I was bound over to keep the peace which I had never broken. But I am not blaming the police at all for that. I want to offer my objection to this Measure because I consider it will disrupt the Police Force and harm it to such an extent that it will take years of sane administration and sane legislation —which this is not—to get the force back to the standard of proficiency and loyalty which it possessed up to the time when the present Commissioner took office. He knows nothing at all about the police. It is quite impossible for him to have had any experience to qualify him to use his judgment accurately, and the whole experience of the country since his appointment proves—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now wandering into a Third Reading speech.

Mr. McENTEE: I am dealing with the Clause that is in the Bill as a result of the report made by the Commissioner of Police. Had the Commissioner the experience that would qualify him to manage the police in an efficient manner, we should not have had this Clause in the Bill at his request to-day. However, the Bill will go through. If the Government gave a free vote to the House, I do not believe it would go through, because there are many hon. Members who have had experience of the Metropolitan Police, and because of their knowledge of the fact, which they have expressed in this House and elsewhere on many occasions, that this force is second to none and probably superior to any other police force in the world, they would have hesitated to make such
drastic changes on the recommendation of a man who, because of his lack of experience, is utterly unqualified to make such recommendations.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: On the last Clause we were discussing the status of the officers in this new Prussianised Police Force which the Home Secretary proposes to set up, but on this Clause we are discussing the position of some of the raw recruits who are to be commanded by swells from Balliol, Trinity and St. Stephen's Club. According to this Measure, a certain number of men, 5,000 strong, are to be recruited for not more than 10 years and, I understand from the Debates upstairs', even for a less period. Just when they are becoming efficient—because we have been assured that it takes 10 years to make an efficient police officer—they are to be thrown on to a hard and unfeeling world with the sum of £160, of which they have contributed £86 themselves-What kind of recruits will be got from this system of recruiting? I suggest that as they will have very little chance of promotion they will remain without ambition. The Government should give some reply on this question of promotion, because the statements made by the Home Secretary are extremely confusing. They were confusing in the Committee, and they have been confusing to-night. In the Committee he said there was nothing to prevent these men from going to the college. He added:
We do not desire to hold out to these men the possibility that they shall be transferred to the long-term service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C,) 20th June, 1933, Col. 71.]
That seems to be contradictory. It is the result of the Home Secretary not having drafted his own Measure, which came to him from another Department. He has said that there would be a chance that a certain man who comes in on the 10 years' service and shows himself of very great ability and efficiency may be asked to go to the college, but the White Paper says definitely not. The White Paper says:
The method of recruitment and the scale of pay will be the same as for the men recruited on the ordinary terms, but a short-service engagement will not be regarded as a stepping-stone to long service, and a constable once recruited on this basis will not be eligible for transfer to the other.
So the White Paper says definitely that these men will not be eligible for transfer.
Unless the Government have changed their minds since the issue of the White Paper, that is the situation. But in any case, even from the Home Secretary's statement, there remains only a slender chance of any of these 5,000 men ever being recruited to the long service system. Therefore, when they are recruited they will be men of very little ambition. Moreover, as they will have to remain in that position throughout the 10 years, or such shorter term of service as the Government may determine, and as they will have to do merely the hard and rather monotonous work and obey the orders barked out to them by the Brown Shirts of the new staff college and then have to leave without pension, I fear they will be men with very little self respect—the kind of person that the old-fashioned military men rather preferred for cannon fodder, the sort of people who obey orders and ask no questions. So instead of the courteous, kindly and efficient officer that we know now, who is able, owing to his tactful conduct, to handle crowds far more efficiently than any retired air marshal or major-general is likely to do, we are to have this new and rather undesirable type, herded together in the police barracks which are referred to in the Commissioner's Report and as we know:
Single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints
they will be ready to sally out whenever our English Hitlers decide to strike.
As Sir Wyndham Childs, a former Assistant Commissioner says:
The new proposals utterly destroy the democratic ideals which exist and undoubtedly will engender class hatred of a serious nature.
The Home Secretary gave as his only reason for the recruitment of this short service class that at present promotion in the service is too slow and stagnant, and that people are too old for getting the higher positions. That could be easily altered by administrative action. Promotion could easily be speeded up by a process of selection, instead of promotion on grounds of seniority. Take the system of promotion in the Navy. In the earlier grades, practically up to the position of captain, it is promotion by selection. Only when a man has become a captain does he rise by seniority to admiral. That system could be applied to the Police Force if the trouble is that
promotion is too slow and men do not attain the higher ranks until they are too old.
As for the other excuse, that there are certain new forms of crime by the motor burglar and the smash-and-grab raider, I do not quite see how these short-service men are likely to deal with such crime more efficiently than do the present force. I should not object if the Home Secretary wanted to set up in addition to the present Police Force a new type of flying squad enlisted for the sole purpose of dealing with motor bandits and people using modern mechanical inventions for carrying out crime. The short-service system has been condemned by very high authority. Sir Charles Stead, late Inspector-General of Police in the Punjab, writing to the "Times" the other day, said:
No professional officer of police could contemplate without dismay the prospect of commanding a short-service body of police in this or in any other country. I do not share Mr. Lessers fears that a short term service would, in these competitive days, react unfavourably on recruitment …but I see a far greater evil in the inevitable demoralisation it would spread in the ranks of serving men. To put it plainly, the constable earmarked for expulsion from the force at the end of 10 years with a mere gratuity would be grievously exposed to a hitherto unwarranted temptation to make hay while the sun was shining; if not for himself, at least on behalf of a family shrinking from the prospect of dependence on the dole or the guardians. Loss of zeal and incentive and much diminished esprit de corps are other accompaniments of a short-service police system on which I will not dilate.
Following on that, Rear-Admiral Cameron, writing to the Times of 20th June, said:
As a layman I feel certain that the public have far more confidence in the old policeman than in the young one, and if that confidence is once shaken I shudder to think how long it will take to restore it. Youth is not everything.
I am sure that appeals to many Members of this House.
Old heads cannot be put on young shoulders,
as I am sure the Treasury Bench will agree,
and since by law a constable's duty is essentially an individual one the introduction of such a large body of young policemen will, I think, lead to unnecessary and considerable friction with the public, resulting in a greater loss in effective police work, widespread publicity of any mistakes or
indiscretions and a lowering of the prestige of the whole service.
He goes on to say:
I do not believe that the right type of man is likely to join for 10 years, for he will know beforehand that he will be on probation for two years and that when but 34 years old he will be discharged.…The prestige of the police has never been higher than at the present time, and the country can ill afford to tamper with it.…Its ultimate failure, as contemplated by experienced police officers, would have far-reaching and disastrous effects not only in London, but throughout the whole country.
Those are statements by two distinguished authorities, and I do not think I need add to them except to say that this proposal of the Government goes clean against the statements made in that Bible of the National Government, the May Report. That report was all against the short-service system. It demanded that the right of voluntary retirement after 25 years of service should be withdrawn, and that retirement should not be permitted before 50 years of age. The May Report said that subject to the pension being secured after 30 years' service the police might reasonably be required to serve until the age of 60 in the country districts and 55 in the more populous areas. Another report, which perhaps is equally notorious, and which had a rather unfortunate effect on a certain leading Conservative back bencher, the Rentoul Committee, said:
Serving men should be encouraged, when fit and suitable to continue in the service beyond the maximum pensionable age to 30 years before retiring with full pension.
After those two reports, why should we have this short-service system merely because it is operated in the Royal Air Force? That is the only reason for it. I ask the Home Secretary to come off his aeroplane and to send his Commissioner back to his hangar.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: We are told by the Home Secretary that the immediate reason for bringing in this Bill is the increase in crime, particularly house breaking and smash-and-grab robberies. He is going to bring in a new force at the rate of 500 per annum and at the end of 10 years there will be a force of 5,000. In view of the smash-and-grab raids going on at the present time, I am wondering whether we shall be able to deal satis-
factorily with that form of crime by recruiting at the rate of 500 per annum. With my knowledge of police work I am convinced that we should have to find another Police Force at the end of the 10 years. We should have to have Marathon runners to overtake the smash-and-grab raiders and they would have to do the 100 yards in 9⅗ seconds. Preferment is not to be offered to these short-service men. They are going into the force on a contract which there will be no breaking except with the consent of the men. I do not know how anyone engaged under the terms of such a contract is going to break it, especially when it is laid down in the Bill that it will be a special term of contract and the man will be a policeman for 10 years and 10 years only. There is nothing in the Bill to say that there is going to be any school or college which will give the man a better opportunity in life.
The Home Secretary must have had the Bill compiled by somebody else, because his knowledge of it does not seem to be very definite. He made the remarkable statement that at the end of 10 years jobs will be found for those men who have served their term in the Metropolitan Force. I take it they will be men of from 31 to 34 years of age, and those men, who will then be outcasts from the force, are to be thrown into the industrial market as competitors. I am not anxious to see men displaced from jobs simply because the outcasts of the London police are asking to be found employment. If they are good enough for jobs to be found for them I think they ought to be retained in the service. It would appear to me that the responsible job which will be offered at the end of this period will give an opportunity to eligible young men of good physique, able at a good sprint to run round corners, men of intelligence, all to be given great opportunities and, at the end of 10 years, to get out. There will be nothing at the end of it. They are to have the opportunity of parading the streets of London, with all its great wealth, and to have all the inner knowledge that is known only to the police. I am wondering what special staff of the Criminal Investigation Department are to watch the new recruits. I imagine that, with the opportunities that are to be given to these men, you will have a job to Catch them at the end of 10 years, if I
know anything of human nature. You should have a psychologist instead of a Commissioner. You need somebody who knows the minds of men, and who would be able to give them security in their old age. There are already many derelicts among the young people in the industrial field. I am afraid that you are gambling with the future of these men.
There is the question of economy. You are starting these men upon a lower scale. There is to be no pension, and there will be a saving. I asked a question, to which I have not yet had an answer, in connection with the provinces. A provincial grant is made by the Treasury to the Police Forces of the country. If the Metropolitan Police Force are to be recruited upon a basis of 10 years' service, am I to understand that the Treasury will refuse to give grants for long service to the provinces? I know that the Home Secretary has no jurisdiction in regard to the Police Forces of the provinces, but the Treasury have the power of the purse in making those grants, and it may be, since the Government are financially mad in regard to economy, that the Treasury may suggest

—a suggestion from the great National Government will be as good as a wink to a blind horse—that the great authorities of the country should adopt short service with no pension for their Police Forces. Has there been no collaboration or interview with the members of watch committees as to how far this Measure may be extended to the provinces?

I am fully convinced that a man of 34, being thrown out on to the labour market, after 10 years' service in the Police Force or in any other walk of life, will find it very hard to get a job. It is a great gamble. I am only emphasising this point, just as other benighted Members on these benches have done, for the sake of making a statement, and of trying to impress the Minister. I know that it is of no use to ask him questions. If other hon. Members are not aware of it, I am. Security of employment should be given. I am hoping against hope that the Minister will withdraw this Clause.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'not' in line 5, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 62.

Division No. 242.]
AYES.
[9.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Law, Sir Alfred


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,w.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Ersklne, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Liddall, Walter S.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fox, Sir Gifford
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.G'n)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mabane, William


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Glucksteln, Louis Halle
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Bllndell, James
Gower, Sir Robert
McCorquodale, M. S.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Greene, William P. C.
McKie, John Hamilton


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Bralthwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Grimston, R. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Magnay, Thomas


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Maltland, Adam


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hales, Harold K.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)
Hanbury, Cecil
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Martin, Thomas B.


Burnett, John George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Merrlman, Sir F. Boyd


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cayzer, MaJ. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Monsell. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Horsbrugh, Florence
Moore. Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morelng, Adrian C.


Conant, R. J. E.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Morris-J ones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cook, Thomas A.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Morrison, William Shepherd


Copeland, Ida
Iveagh, Countess of
Munro, Patrick


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Murray-Phllipson, Hylton Ralph


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Nail, Sir Joseph


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Cross, R. H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Ker, J. Campbell
Nunn, William


Drewe, Cedric
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Duckworth. George A. V.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Dunglass, Lord
Kimball, Lawrence
Penny, Sir George


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Petherick, M.


Potter, John
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Train, John


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Held, William Allan (Derby)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Remer, John R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Somerset, Thomas
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur u.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Robinson, John Roland
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ropner, Colonel L.
Speart, Brigadier-General Edward L,
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Spens, William Patrick
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ruggles-Brlse, Colonel E. A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)
Storey, Samuel
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)
Strauss, Edward A.
Wise, Alfred R.


Salmon, Sir Isldore
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.



Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Mr. Womersley and Major George Davies.


NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bernays, Robert
Hamilton, Sir A. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Rea, Walter Russell


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Clarke, Frank
Janner, Barnett
Rothschild, James A. de


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
White, Henry Graham


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lewis, Oswald
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McGovern, John
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Grenfell. David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

10.0 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out the words "not exceeding," and to insert instead thereof the word "for."
This is a very simple Amendment, and the issue which it raises is very clear. The Bill says that the service is to be for a period "not exceeding ten years," while, on the other hand, the White Paper says:
The Government have …decided that a portion of the force shall be recruited on short-service engagements for a period of 10 years.
In the Committee we asked the Solicitor-General what the intention of the Government was. The Solicitor-General is always clear, as one would expect a lawyer to be; he always says what is in the mind of the Government, and what is in his own mind. He said that the Government wanted a free hand—that, if a man were recruited for 10 years, the period of service would be 10 years, and would not be liable to any alteration, but
that supposing, for the sake of argument, it became desirable to shorten the period of service by one year to nine years, in that case, as the Solicitor-General said quite frankly, it would be possible within the meaning of the Clause, and it was intended that it should be possible, to change the policy for the future. We do not want the policy to be changed in the future without the permission of this House. We want the present intention of the Government to be adhered to, that is to say, we want them only to have the power to recruit for 10 years and not less. We do not want next year to see the term of service reduced to nine years, or, in two or three years, to seven, six, five or even three years. I suggest to the Government that it would be better for the country, and more acceptable to public opinion, that the present intention should be adhered to, and that the power given to the Government should be power to recruit for at least 10 years, or 10 years and not more, or 10 years and not less.
I hope that the Government will make this slight concession at the eleventh hour, and will use the simpler word which I suggest, in preference to the two or three rather ambiguous words which are now in the Bill.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend has made it clear that we desire, if we cannot get the Clause removed, to make a definite provision that the period of service shall be l0 years. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider it prudent at this stage to answer a question appertaining both to this and the previous Clause, namely: What is going to be the position in respect of pensions and kindred matters for the men who are going to be recruited under this system? It is rather important that we should know how far the Police Pensions Act, 1921, is going to apply before we come to a definite decision. I am sure the House would like to know that before voting on this Amendment. In the second place, I should like to know what is the period when the most claims are made in respect of injuries received by men serving in the force? Am I correct in saying that the peak years are about the fifth or sixth years of service; and, if that be so, would it not be in the interests of economy that men should be retained in the force for at least 10 years, in order that the amount which the Treasury would have to pay in respect of these claims might be minimised, or at any rate levelled out? We think that at least 10 years should be the period for which recruiting should take place.

10.4 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I can answer first of all the question which the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) has just put with regard to police pensions, and which is raised as a clear issue by the next Amendment. There is not the slightest doubt that the Police Pensions Act, 1921, will apply to these short-service men with the modifications provided in this Clause. May I tak one specific instance which was put in the preceding Debate? If a constable is injured and incapacitated for future service during the 10-years period, he will have the right to the
gratuity which is already provided under the Police Pensions Act. On the other hand, if outside the scheme his services are prolonged to a period of 25 years, he would count his accrued service in the original period of recruitment for the pension that he would get at the end of the 25 years.

Mr. JANNER: One of the provisions of the 1921 Act is to the effect that, if a constable is injured in the course of his work, he is entitled to a pension. Is that going to apply?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is if he is injured having completed 10 years. He cannot have completed 10 years within the period of recruitment which is only for 10 years. It is the provision that says what is to happen to him within the 10 years which will apply to him, and that is a gratuity and not a pension. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) was perfectly accurate in the way he put the position. The present policy of the Government is to recruit for 10 years. So far as I know, there is no immediate prospect of changing that policy, but we do not wish to be tied hand and foot in case unforeseen circumstances make it necessary to recruit for, say, nine years. After all, the House will keep complete control. If there were that change of policy, the matter could be raised at any time on the appropriate Vote and the House would be able to express its opinion.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: We are in a rather difficult position. We have heard speeches from almost the only Liberals in the House who have never been quota Ministers, but we have not heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who is a great authority on this subject. I conclude from his absence that he considered that these Amendments were entirely futile and were not worth moving. So that we have another split in the Liberal party. I draw the attention of the House to that, and I hope we shall not be troubled with any more of these not very sensible Amendments.

Amendment negatived.

10.7 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, to leave out from the word "State" to the end of the Sub-section,
and to insert instead thereof the words: "to the prolongation of the period of service in suitable cases, when such constables shall be entitled to full pension rights." This was the subject of some discussion on the question of the Clause standing part, and there was considerable confusion as to what will be the position of these men should it be thought desirable that they should stay on. It is clear that it is hoped that among these recruits on a 10 years' basis there will be a number who will show great capacity for their job, and in some cases very special ability. It was sought to find out whether it would be possible for them to continue on a long-service basis. The White Paper is very definite that they would not stay on. It says that a short-service engagement will not be regarded as a stepping-stone to long-service, and a constable once recruited on that basis will not be eligible for transfer to the other, that is the long-service basis. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman to-day has emphasised time after time that it would be impossible to retain those services.
I think I understand what was in his mind, and what he was not able to make clear to the hon. Member opposite. As I understand it, the only cases that will be retained for the longer period are those who have been able to pass into the Police College, either by examination or by the invitation of superior officers. The intention of the Secretary of State is that those men can go on after 10 years, but the ordinary constable who has not passed into the Police College within 10 years, however capable and efficient he may be, will have to be lost to the service. That is neither in the interests of the efficiency of the service nor in the interests of the (men themselves. If we are going to get the best out of them, there must always be some opportunity, in the case of special service or special good conduct or exceptional ability, that they should be transferred to the long period. I want to give the Home Secretary that power. I am not asking that every man should have the right. All I am suggesting is that, if the Home Secretary or his successors want to reward good service or good conduct, they should not be prevented by this Act of Parliament from transferring these short-service men to long-service conditions. That is a very reasonable and moderate proposal.
It leaves the supreme power in the hands of the Home Secretary and it would remove some of the fears of hon. Members opposite if he accepted the Amendment.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so in spite of the objections of the hon. Member opposite. We believe that, if it is the intention to give an opportunity to a man who is recruited under the short-service scheme to have his time extended, the Act itself should provide the opportunity. The question has been raised as to whether there was any possibility of that in view of the terms of the Bill, and we were told that by private arrangement it could be done. One might very easily remove the doubt by adding these words. I am not quite satisfied with the reply given to me with regard to the Police Pensions Act. A person who has less than 10 years' service is entitled to. a gratuity if he becomes incapacitated through no fault of his own, and a person who has a longer period of service will be entitled to a pension.
But there is one other class and I should like to have an explanation with regard to it. It says here that, if at any time he is incapacitated from the performance of his duty by infirmity of mind or body occasioned by an injury received in the execution of his duty without his own default, he shall be entitled on a medical certificate to retire and receive a special pension for life. That is irrespective of the length of service for which he has been engaged. I should like to know where is the provision whereby a man who is taken on a short-service basis is entitled to a pension at all. What is going to be the rate of that pension? Will it come under the ordinary provisions of the Act? Why should not the Government accept this Amendment, which makes the position clear which they have been telling us is already in existence? We are doubtful about it and all that we ask is that a man should know that he is not bound by watertight regulations to serve only for 10 years and then find his service definitely stopped and that the Act provides no opportunity for an extension of that service.

10.15 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner)
has rightly called attention to. that particular provision. When I replied on the last Amendment I stated accurately that it was intended to give all the pension rights which members of the existing Police Force have, and to extend them to the short-service constable. I am sorry to say that for the moment I overlooked the special pension which can be given to the man who is injured in the execution of his duty, whether within or without the 10 years. There is no need to lay down any new scale for that. The scale for that special pension is provided in the Schedule to the Police Pensions Act. All those rights will be preserved to those who are recruited on short term.
With regard to the substance of the Amendment, it is not really necessary, because, as far as the Bill is concerned, there is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from recruiting men afresh after the end of their 10 years, any more than there is anything to prevent him, during the period of the 10 years, from allowing a man to go to the Police College and so enter into the long service. But I say explicitly that it is not contemplated that there will be a fresh recruitment at the end of the 10 years. As the Home Secretary has already explained, it is only in rare and exceptional cases that there will be any change from the recruitment for 10 years. Only in a very exceptional case can a man be taken into the Police College, and it is not contemplated that there will be any extension of the period of service, and for this very excellent reason. If once employers thought that the Police Force were taking on the best of the men who had served for 10 years, it would necessarily diminish the chance of the others getting employment in the labour market. Employers would think that they were being left with the second-grade men, and that the first-grade men were being kept on in the force.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

10.18 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House declines to proceed with a Bill to amend enactments relating to the
Metropolitan Police until an exhaustive inquiry has been held into the whole administration of the force, including the system of promotion within the ranks and appointments from outside, the necessity for a greater measure of democratic control, and the alleged lack of contact between the Secretary of State and Scotland Yard.
I think that this Amendment would probably be carried by an overwhelming majority if all Members of the House had been present throughout this Debate, because there are several remarkable features about the discussions on this Bill. We have had discussions in this House, and there has been considerable discussion in the Press, but we have had no expert who has expressed himself in terms of any approval whatever of the scheme except, of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) who gave half-hearted support, but who is not here to-night to back it up, and may have gone back to the fence. There is not a police authority in this or any other country who approves of the short service system. The Press is open, and retired officials love to write to the Press, and a good many have written against it, but the right hon. Gentleman has had absolutely no support. We have had no evidence taken upon these matters; all we have is the opinion of the Home Secretary. We value the opinion of the Home Secretary on many subjects, but he is a very short service man so far as the Home Office is concerned. He has been a short time there. He relies on the Commissioner, also of very high quality in quite a different field of work, who has also been in his present position a. very short time. He also brought in to advise him another military man, also of very short experience there, and the three of them produced this scheme.
There was no weight of authority for the proposal; we thought there might be some weight of argument, but I never knew such an extraordinary mass of inconsistencies as those put forward by the Home Secretary in support of these proposals. The basis of the whole thing is that there are not enough brains in the force and that the mass of policemen stagnate. The right hon. Gentleman has a most peculiar remedy. First of all, be makes a serious allegation against the force that there are 20,000 men the majority of whom cannot expect to be promoted. Where on earth are you going
to find any force where everyone expects promotion? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Liberal party."] Not even all the Liberal party have been in the Government. Where are you going to get a force where everybody expects to attain the Field Marshal's baton? It is not done anywhere. Does every subaltern expect to become a General? Of course be does not. Therefore, that argument is entirely fallacious.
The right hon. Gentleman also says that it is very depressing that all these men are going to go on and never get any promotion. How are they going to remedy that? The first thing they do is to arrange to take in a lot of people who will take most of the best jobs. That is the way to encourage men in the force. Then, to make sure that there shall be a chance of promotion, they are going to form a special class of 5,000 men who under no conceivable circumstances can have any promotion. There has, however, been a sort of 10.30 repentance about that, and it is possible that one or two of those men may get promotion. We have the melancholy picture of the men who do the ordinary duties of tramping round and round and do extremely unexciting work, who have no chance of promotion. Therefore 5,000 new men are to be brought in.
The next inconsistent reason why the force is no good is because things are so exciting, and they have to bring in a lot of young men to deal with the clever criminals. No one over 30 is considered sufficiently capable to cope with the expert criminals. It is recognised that a university career is no good if you want to catch a Hatry; you must start in the City to do that. Then we had quite a different picture, showing that the policeman's lot is not a happy one in walking round the houses of East London without very much to do, while another picture was that of the policeman shinning up a pipe to catch a cat burglar.
Then there is the Police College. I am not saying that the Police College is not a good idea, but I think it should be rather a staff college than a Sandhurst. Apparently, we are to have this university to train super-sleuths. The Home Secretary had a distinguished career at the Ministry of Agriculture for a short time, where he learned the lesson of the absolute necessity of supply meeting de-
mand, and he is going to make quite sure that if he has got his super-sleuths they shall be supplied with super-criminals to deal with. That is the reason for this short-term system. It is no good saying that it is wrong to allow people to be led into crime; there are very few uncorrupted police forces in the world. I say that on the highest authority. It is a great test of any administration to have a police force which is not corrupt. A policeman's lot disposes him to temptation, and hitherto we have kept this force at a very high level, partly by careful recruitment, partly by the general good standard throughout, and partly by the fact that it is a long service with a pension at the end of it. Now you are going to introduce men for a period of 10 years, and you choose to do it at a time when there is more unemployment in the world than ever before. Policemen can read the OFFICIAL REPORT, they can read on the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are to expect to have 2,000,000 men unemployed for at least 10 years, at the end of which they are to be thrown out of the force with no special expert knowledge except a good character and a police training.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are crowds of men walking the streets of London to-day with good characters and good reputations from the Army, who cannot find a job. There will be a grave temptation on these men when they leave the force, and when they are in the force, to make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, which is not at all unknown in police forces in other countries. Think of the temptation to a man brought into contact with what I call the higher flights of criminals, those who make a good deal of money at it, who knows that he is going to be thrown out of the force, if there is a chance to make friends of the mammon of unrighteousness before he goes out. It is a severe temptation to which to expose any body of men. Suppose that they resist it, and I believe that the vast majority of them will resist it, what is going to happen to them when, in the very streets where they used to be the man-on-the-beat, they take their place in the line of the unemployed, and have to go on a hopeless search for work, looking here and there? The danger is that some at all events of them will be tempted and will
fall. This plan has been badly thought out. You are going to break up the esprit de corps of the Police Force by putting it on a class basis. What does it all amount to? It is said that you must have brains at the top. There are plenty of brains in the Police Force if you give them a chance to get to the top. You have never done that hitherto. Only one man has reached the second flight, no one has ever become Commissioner. Why should that be so, when in other services they do reach the top? May I give a parallel?
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the Report of the Committee presided over by a predecessor of his at the Home Office, Lord Bridgeman, on the Post Office. The Post Office is a great organisation of service to the public, and like the Police Force they are brought into contact with the ordinary public. If the right hon. Gentleman has read that Report he will know that the point made there is that it is a mistake to establish a gulf between headquarters and the rank and file who are in touch with the general public. The precise thing which is now being advocated in the Police Force is being abandoned by the Post Office. In fact they say that what you want to do is to take the man and let him get out into the provinces and become thoroughly acquainted with the practical end of the work, and then by a process of selection bring him in to headquarters. Even at the present time people do rise to the highest flights because there is plenty of brains there if you have people to bring those brains to the front. Only two or three days ago on the wireless I heard a speech by our representative to the great international conference on wavelengths, and I know that the gentleman who was speaking had risen to a very high post and had started as a telegraph messenger boy. In the same way the late chief engineer started as a telegraph messenger boy. You say that the Police Force has not yet produced a Commissioner. I do not think the force has had a square deal. If you had had your Police College, well and good; you could have made your selection at the proper age.
I mistrust this scheme altogether. We have had different answers given to
every kind of point. This temporary scheme, it is suggested, will make for economy. It will be not economy, but parsimony. You think you will save money on pensions, but if the men have eventually to draw unemployment benefit the State will pay all the same. No real reason has been given for the Bill except the private reason that it will satisfy some members of the Conservative party. The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Major Mills) gave us one interesting reason. It is that we are to have an output of small capitalists. These short-service men at the end of 10 years will come out of the force with £180, and they are to develop into small Conservative capitalists. That suggestion indicates a greater range of fancy on the part of a private Member than any which the Home Secretary has given the House publicly, and that is saying a good deal.
I mistrust this scheme altogether. It is a scheme suggested by a man who has spent his whole life in a different milieu altogether from the Police Force. He has spent his time in two short-service organisations, the Army and the Air Force, and the Air Force is particularly short-service work, owing to its nature. The whole object of short service in the Army is to create a great reserve. But the Home Secretary says that he does not intend to create a reserve and does not intend to have these men called up. They are to be recruited, and when they have finished their term of service they can go. The other thing is that there is to be a gulf fixed between officers and men. It is an old-fashioned idea to think that you want to have that gulf. But the Home Secretary is trying to make a gulf between even the non-commissioned officers and the men. That is quite out of place. The right hon. Gentleman has drawn an entirely false analogy. The tradition of the other services has been built up on the basis of a mass of men acting under the orders of one, whereas in police work it is essential to have individual work by individual policemen.
Finally, the Home Secretary said, "This is only an experiment and we can call it off if it is not a success." A thing like the Metropolitan Police Force is a thing that it is very difficult to build up and extremely easy to spoil, because the essential requirement is not the physique of the men, it is not even the specialised branches at Scotland Yard, but
is the character of the Police Force as a whole, the spirit of the force and the relationship of that force to the public The right hon. Gentleman is going to tamper with that rashly. He is in danger of creating a gulf within the force and a gulf between the public and the force. In this Amendment I suggest that before we try to tamper with something which has served us for a very long time, which may need amendment now but which certainly ought not to be altered rashly or without full consideration, there should be an open public inquiry so that we can find out what is really thought of this question by the people who know. I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman both inside and outside the House has had singularly little support from such people for these proposals.

10.37 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: In giving reasons why I cannot support the Bill I do not wish it to be understood that I am against all the proposals in the White Paper. I am prepared to accept the contention that in the changing conditions of our time there is need for any force of this kind to be modified, improved, and brought up-to-date. I have always felt as an educationist that in the selection of a force of this kind more preference should be given to young men whose parents have given them an opportunity of continuing their education at central and secondary schools. In the past too much consideration has been given to mere brawn. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the necessity for keeping pace with the cunning modern criminals, the cat burglar, the bag snatcher, and so forth. All those cases can be met by giving a preference to young men of good education. In the past the tendency was to go to the rural districts and to get strong young men. That is all very well for one side of the work of the Police Force for dealing with crowds and for work of that kind but under the new conditions you want to get the best men available, drawn as far as possible from those who have had the benefit of the newer educational facilities provided by the State. I am in favour of the new staff college which is proposed. Crime is becoming more a science and must be dealt with by scientific means and if the best use is to be made of the Police Force those who are to have charge of administration and
discipline and who are to occupy responsible positions ought to have the opportunity at the right time of entering some kind of training college. That aspect of the proposals in the White Paper is not dealt with in this Bill.
This short Bill of four Clauses deals only with two matters of importance. The first Clause we accept without discussion, but the two last Clauses have been discussed at length. One of these is going to crab the Police Federation set up by the House of Commons in 1919, after prolonged inquiry, as a substitute for a police trade union. The second of these two Clauses proposes a short-service section of the force, which we regard as most undesirable. I believe that it will weaken the moral of the force and tend to swell the ranks of the unemployed. I am not satisfied that the proposed employment board will by any means meet the case in that respect.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that all the reforms that are required in the light of the experience of the last few years could be carried out without any of these Clauses being put on the Statute Book. I consider that this Bill is reactionary, and it is very significant that it is not to be applied to the provinces. -It is an unnecessary slur on the London police, because you are going to impose two conditions on them that are not to apply to any other part of the country. There is to be no restriction as to membership of the Police Federation in Manchester, Liverpool, or any other big centre, where, I suggest, the police are no better than they are here. They may not be worse, but they are no better, and I consider that the Metropolitan police vie with the police in any part of the country. Secondly, the short-term experiment is to be confined to London, and I say that the London police are quite as efficient and as well organised —and this is a compliment to the Home Office and the Commissioner—as the police in any other part of the country and that it is needless to make this unnecessary reflection on the organisation of the force. For these reasons, I propose to vote against the Bill.

10.42 p.m.

Brigadier-General NATION: Little can be said that can affect the passage of this Bill now, but there are one or two
points on which I should like some information from the Minister in his closing remarks. I would like to draw special attention to the position of the women police. Women in all walks of life are competing now with men, and in many walks they are doing almost if not quite as well as men. The Commissioner has referred to the women police in his report, but up to now not a word has been said about them either on the Third Reading—

Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing about women police in the Bill.

Brigadier-General NATION: I will therefore leave that point. The second point is about the Police College. One of the reasons for the reorganisation of the police is said to be economy, and I would like to know whether economy has been studied in connection with the Police College and whether investigation has been made from other Government Departments as to redundant buildings. What is going to be paid for the purchase and upkeep of this college? We have little or no knowledge on this subject. Lastly, I know quite well that this Bill does not extend to the borough and county police, but I would like to know whether the Minister has any intention of introducing legislation which would extend—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not in order on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Brigadier-General NATION: Reference has been made to the county police, Sir, and if the Minister has no intention of introducing legislation, I think some declaration should be made by him as to whether any pressure is to be brought to bear to extend this system beyond the Metropolitan Police. If the right hon. Gentleman could make some reference to this point in his closing remarks, it would give considerable satisfaction, not only to Members of the House, but to those outside as well.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I should like to add one or two remarks to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee). We are moving this Amendment because of events that have happened at Scotland Yard within the
last few days, namely, the suspension of one of the leading officers and so on. Again and again there have been investigations at the Yard, but there has never been a conclusion to them, and the public and this House have no knowledge of what these investigations have revealed and what sort of conditions have been brought to light. We feel that the basis of this Bill is altogether wrong and that those who framed it have not framed any sort of scheme for, so far as we know, dealing with what is the real evil. The real evil connected with the force, as far as we in the House know anything about it, concerns the people at the top, the people who, in the main, have occupied a high position and who cannot be put in the category of the persons who have been selected merely for their brawn. It is a matter of serious disquietude that it is in the section of the police in the West End of London, among what are supposed to be the most cultured and educated people, where, so far as we know—and we can only go by the information that dribbles out to us—really bad corruption is being proved to exist.
We feel that after the years of Lord Byng's attempt to clear up the business, and after the incidents that have happened recently, it is time the House of Commons appointed its own committee and that we had a thorough investigation, not so much into the question whether the constables on the beat are doing their job well, or whether they are able to handle crowds properly, but whether those in charge of the central administration are fitted for the work they are appointed to do. I am only one of a minority in the House in demanding this, but we ought to have an investigation into the question whether it is education that is at stake in this matter, whether it is true that what is wrong is due to lack of education. I deny that men trained at the universities are any more honest than the average British working-man. I do not believe that it is a question of education at all, and anyone who knows anything about their fellow men and women know that that is true. The votes of this House have proved that this Bill is not very acceptable to the majority, and, in the judgment of some of those best able to give an opinion on the subject, it will injure the Police Force. As there is that kind of doubt in the matter, the Govern-
ment ought to hold it up pending an inquiry. There is no desperate hurry for this Measure. Nothing will be injured if it is held up until the autumn Session or until after Christmas.
In the meantime, we should have a committee to sit at Scotland Yard or here to overhaul the Police Force publicly. Let the public know exactly what is wrong. It may very well be that Lord Trenchard knows all about it. We were told that Lord Byng knew all about it, and that he had cleared it all up. We maintain that, on their own confession, the place is in a terrible muddle, and yet for all these years selected persons have been brought in to manage the business. The Home Secretary said that he has nobody there who can give him any proper information. That is his criticism —not of the rank and file, but of those who are at the top. Because that is so, we ask the Home Secretary to let his Bill be held up—it will not do any harm—and let us have this inquiry, in public and not in private, into the whole business.

10.51 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think that I need take up much of the time of the House. Of course, I realise the anxiety and interest of hon. Members in dealing with this problem. This Bill is based on information which was supplied to the Government and to this House as to certain defects which were ascertained and noted by the Commissioner of Police. That report was considered by the Government. It was most carefully investigated, and, as a result of that investigation, the Government presented a White Paper to this House which represents the findings of the Government, and on that White Paper this Bill is based. The responsibility for the White Paper and for the Bill is that of the Government, and I venture to say that when this question has developed in accordance with the provisions of this Bill it will be found that we have taken measures adequately to put right the main part of the trouble.
The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has said that, in his judgment, some of the greatest difficulties and some of the worst troubles are at the top. I am only concerned with this, that whether it be at the top or in the rank and file, anything which is contrary to the proper discipline and the proper carrying out of
the work of the Metropolitan Police shall be dealt with. Let us be fair to all classes, and let me say at this stage that I trust all ranks of the Metropolitan Police Force will realise that I speak with honesty of purpose when I say that nothing which the Government are suggesting in this Bill or to which I, as the Minister responsible for it, may assent, is directed against the high tradition and the future well-being of this force. It is our desire, as I am sure it is that of the Government and of the Commissioner of Police, that all ranks of the Metropolitan Police Force, will realise unreservedly that the setting up of this college and the definite plans, into which I cannot go at this stage, but which I trust will be very shortly brought into operation, are directed for the sole purpose of doing away with the system which has entailed the necessity of repeatedly bringing in from the outside men who have not been connected with the service throughout their careers. If that is done, that kind of criticism can no longer be directed against the force, and it will be throwing the way open so that there shall be an opportunity for the humblest constable coming into the force to have—what he has never had until this time—the possibility of rising to the highest posts.
In the new Clauses which were put on the Paper, some hon. Gentlemen desired that these men should pass through each stage to each rank in succession, but that is not the way of getting the best service. That is not the way, in my judgment, to give opportunities to the man who is most fitted for the post to rise to the top. I trust the House will realise that this is a genuine effort to put this force on a sound basis. I am grateful to Members for the very kindly and friendly way in which they have dealt with me in the House and in Committee. Believe me, this Measure is brought forward with the best of intentions, with the sole honest purpose of giving a straight and fair deal to every man and officer in the Police Force, and I believe that in its working this scheme will be found to be very successful.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 52.

Division No. 243.]
AYES.
[10.56 p.m.


Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel
Grimston, R. V.
Penny, Sir George


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Petherick, M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hales, Harold K.
Potter, John


Astbury. Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Hanbury, Cecil
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hanley, Dennis A.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsay, T. B. w. (Western Isles)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Remer, John R.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorke., Skipton)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Rentoul Sir Gervals S.


Borodale, Viscount
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Robinson. John Roland


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Bralthwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Host Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hunter Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Runge, Norah Cecil


Broadbent, Colonel John
Iveagh, Countess of
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.Newb'y)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Browne, Captain A. C.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Burnett, John George
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Butt, Sir Alfred
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Ker, J. Campbell
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Kimball, Lawrence
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Carver, Major William H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cayzer, Ma]. Sir H. R.(Prtsmth., S.)
Law, Sir Alfred
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-ln-F.)


Clarke, Frank
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lelghton, Major B. E. P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Llddall, Walter S.
Somerset, Thomas


Colman, N. C. D.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Somerville. D. G. (Wlllesden, East)


Conant, R. J. E.
Locker-Lampson.Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cook, Thomas A.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Copeland, Ida
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Mabane, William
Spans, William Patrick


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
MacAndrew, Lleut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Cross, R. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon: J. C. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Strickland. Captain W. F.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
McKie, John Hamilton
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Drewe, Cedric
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Duckworth, George A. V.
Magnay, Thomas
Tate, Mavis Constance


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Maltland, Adam
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Dunglass, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Train, John


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliston. Captain George Sampson
Martin, Thomas B.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Essenhigh. Reginald Clare
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wells, Sydney Richard


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Milne, Charles
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore. Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Moreing, Adrian C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Herff'd)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris-Jones, Or. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Glucksteln, Louis Halle
Morrison, William shephard
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Goff, Sir Park
Munro, Patrick
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Ralph
Wise, Alfred R.


Gower, Sir Robert
Nail, Sir Joseph
Womersley, Walter James


Graves, Marjorle
Nall-Caln, Hon. Ronald
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Greene, William P. C.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.



Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Grigg, Sir Edward
Peake, Captain Osbert
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Blindell.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur


Attlee, Clement Richard
Curry, A. C.
Granted, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Banfield, John William
Daggar, George
Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)


Batey, Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Groves, Thomas E.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Edwards, Charles
Grundy, Thomas W.


Buchanan, George
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Hall. George H. (Methyr Tydvll)


Cape, Thomas
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Harris, Sir Percy


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Hicks, Ernest George




Hirst, George Henry
McEntee, Valentine L.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Holdsworth, Herbert
McGovern, John
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Janner, Barnett
McKeag, Willam
Thorne, William James


Jenkins, Sir William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


John. William
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Mliner. Major James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Nathan, Major H. L.



Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Owen, Major Goronwy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lawson. John James
Parkinson, John Allen
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G.


Logan, David Gilbert
Price, Gabriel
Macdonald.


Lunn, William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [21ST JUNE].

Resolution reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1933.

CLASS V.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £22,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Ex-
changes and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Removal of Workers and their Dependants; Grants for assisting the voluntary provision of occupation for unemployed persons; and sundry services, including services arising out of the War."

Resolution agreed to.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn." —[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.